Alta Bates Summit Medical Center

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jun 16, 2010

32-CA-024459 (N.L.R.B. Jun. 16, 2010)

JD(SF)−25−10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
ALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER
and Cases 32-CA-24459
32-CA-24469
NATIONAL UNION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS 32-CA-24470
Amy L. Berbower, Esq. and
Yaromil Valez-Ralph, Esq., of Oakland, CA.,
appearing on behalf of the General Counsel.
David J. Tubman, Jr., Esq.
(Tubman Law Group), of Oakland, CA.,
For the Charging Party.
Christopher T. Scanlan, Esq. and
Ellinor R. Coder, Esq. (Jones Day),
of San Francisco, CA, for the Respondent.
DECISION
BURTON LITVACK: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Statement of the Case
The unfair labor practice charge in Case 32-CA- 24459 was filed by National Union of
Healthcare Workers, herein called NUHW, on April 9, 2009; the unfair labor practice charge in
Case 32-CA-24469 was filed by NUHW on April 14, 2009; and the unfair labor practice charge
in Case 24470 was filed by NUHW on April 14, 2009. After investigation of each of the unfair
labor practice charges, on August 31, 2009, the Regional Director for Region 32 of the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, consolidated the aforementioned matters and
issued a consolidated complaint, alleging that Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, herein called
Respondent, had engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the
Act. Respondent timely filed an answer, essentially denying the commission of any of the
alleged unfair labor practices and asserting several affirmative defenses. Pursuant to the
Regional Director’s order, a trial on the merits of the alleged unfair labor practices was held
before the above-named administrative law judge in Oakland, California on November 30 and
December 1-3, 2009.1 During the trial, each party was afforded the opportunity to call and

1 Unless otherwise stated, all events herein occurred during 2009.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
examine witnesses in its behalf, to cross-examine witnesses for the opposing parties, to offer
into the record any relevant documentary or pictorial evidence, to argue its positions on points of
law orally, and to file a post-hearing brief. Each party filed a post-hearing brief, and said
documents have been examined carefully by me. Accordingly, based upon the entire record
herein, including the said briefs and my observation of the testimonial demeanor of each of the
several witnesses, I make the following;2
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
At all times material herein, Respondent has been a California non-profit corporation and
has been engaged in the business of providing acute-care, emergency medical, and surgical
services at its facilities located in Berkeley and Oakland, California, including its Alta Bates
Hospital and Summit Hospital campuses. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance
of the consolidated complaint, in the normal course and conduct of its aforementioned business
operations, Respondent received gross revenues in excess of $250,000 and purchased and
received goods or services in excess of $5,000 directly from suppliers located outside the State
of California. Respondent admits that it is now, and has been at all times material herein, an
employer within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) and a healthcare institution within the
meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act.
II. Labor Organization
The parties stipulated that NUHW is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
A. The Issues
The consolidated complaint alleges that Respondent engaged in acts and conduct
violative of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act by, on March 20, at its Summit Hospital campus cafeteria,
engaging in surveillance of its employees engaged in union or other protected concerted
activities and by, on March 23, at its Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria, engaging in
surveillance of its employees engaged in union or other protected concerted activities. The
consolidated complaint further alleges that Respondent engaged in acts and conduct violative of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by, on March 20 at its Summit Hospital campus cafeteria and,
on March 23 at its Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria, discriminatorily enforcing its
solicitation/distribution rule by telling employees that they could not solicit support for the NUHW
or distribute NUHW literature in its cafeteria; by, on March 23, at its Alta Bates Hospital campus
cafeteria, discriminatorily enforcing its solicitation/distribution rule by threatening to suspend an
employee for soliciting support for the Union and/or for distributing Union literature in its
cafeteria and by ordering an off-duty employee to leave its cafeteria; by, on February 21, issuing
a disciplinary warning to its employee, Beverly Griffith; by, on March 23, suspending its
employee, Beverly Griffith; and by, on April 6, discharging its employee Beverly Griffith, and,
since said date, failing and refusing to reinstate her to her former position of employment.

2 Sadly, notwithstanding my admonitions to each witness regarding the seriousness of the
oath to tell the truth and not to fabricate his or her testimony, two witnesses, in particular,
seemingly decided not to adhere to my demand and gave feigned testimony. Others testified,
for the most part, honestly but felt the need to fabricate important aspects of their testimony.
These individuals will be identified infra.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
B. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
1. The Facts
Respondent is a California non-profit corporation, and, since 1992, it has owned and
operated four hospital facilities in northern California, including its Summit Hospital facility,
herein called the Summit Hospital campus, located in Oakland, and its Alta Bates Hospital
facility, herein called the Alta Bates Hospital campus, located in Berkeley, at which it provides
acute-care, emergency, medical, and surgical services. Since prior to its acquisition of the
entities comprising its aforementioned business operations, Respondent’s various employees
have been represented for purposes of collective-bargaining by labor organizations, with its
service employees, including the environmental services employees, having been represented
by Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers—West, herein called
SEIU-UHW, since, at least, 1978. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement between
SEIU-UHW and Respondent was effective from February 14, 2006 through June 30, 2008.
Subsequent to the expiration of the above-described agreement, the parties have entered into
extensions and have been engaged in on-going negotiations for a successor contract. On
approximately January 26, the Service Employees International Union, herein called the SEIU,
placed SEIU-UHW into trusteeship. Shortly thereafter, the ousted SEIU-UHW officers and
executive board members established a new labor organization, the NUHW, and immediately
began an organizing campaign throughout California amongst the hospital employees, including
Respondent’s service employees, who had previously been represented by SEIU-UHW. By
January 29, several of Respondent’s service employees commenced circulating a petition,
designed to decertify SEIU-UHW and to certify the NUHW as their collective-bargaining
representative, amongst their co-workers, represented by SEIU-UHW. Ultimately, after
approximately 70 percent of said employees had executed the petition, several of them went to
the office of Warren Kirk, Respondent’s chief operating officer, presented the petition to his
secretary, and verbally demanded that Respondent recognize the NUHW as their bargaining
representative. In February, the NUHW filed a decertification petition with the Board, which
remained pending as of the commencement of the instant hearing.
Prior to proceeding with a discussion of the alleged unfair labor practices, I note that two
of Respondent’s employment policies and one asserted “practice” are directly pertinent to the
factual and legal issues involved in the instant matters. First, Respondent’s employee
handbook sets forth written policies regarding disruptive conduct and misconduct. The former
behavior is defined as “. . . conduct that has the potential for adversely impacting both the
quality of patient care and the ability of other employees to work effectively.” Then, the written
policy notes several forms and examples of prohibited behaviors including tirades; abusive
treatment of patients, employees, physicians, visitors, or others; behavior during meetings which
has the effect of seriously interrupting the meeting; verbal attacks directed at individuals or
groups “which are personal, irrelevant, or go beyond the bounds of fair professional comments;”
impertinent and inappropriate comments written in official documents which “Impugn the quality
of care in the medical center;” and non-constructive criticism addressed to its recipient in such a
way as to “intimidate, undermine confidence, belittle, or imply stupidity or incompetence.”
Finally, said written policy states that “when the behavior disrupts the operation of the
workplace, affects the ability of others to get their jobs done, and creates a sense of hostility in
the workplace, it will be necessary to take appropriate action to address such conduct.” Next,
the employee handbook defines misconduct as behaviors “. . . so serious in nature and so
contradictory to the goals of and expectations of [Respondent] that they require immediate
action” and sets forth several types of employee misconduct, including insubordination or willful
refusal to carry out a reasonable order, inappropriate behavior while on duty, or “the use of foul
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
or abusive language on company property or while performing duties at any location.” With
regard to either disruptive conduct or misconduct, Respondent’s progressive disciplinary policy,
which begins with a documented verbal warning and includes possible termination, applies.

Next, Respondent maintains written policies regulating solicitations and distribution of
literature, which are set forth in the human resources department policy and procedures
manual. Initially, non-employees are prohibited from soliciting or distributing literature on
Respondent’s property at any time for any purpose; however, said individuals may conduct
authorized business in designated areas on Respondent’s property with the prior approval of
Respondent.3 As to employees, they are not permitted to solicit any patient or patient’s family
for any reason at any time, and they are not permitted to solicit or distribute literature during
scheduled working time, which includes the scheduled working time of both the employee doing
the soliciting or distributing and the employee to whom the activity is directed but which does not
include the time prior to or following a work shift and meal and break periods. Further, soliciting
and distributing literature are prohibited in all patient care areas and in all other areas where
employees normally work. As defined, work areas do not include the hospital cafeterias and
street lobbies, employee lounges and break rooms, public and private sidewalks, driveways,
and parking areas.4 Likewise, the guidelines for Respondent’s security services state that
employees may solicit and distribute literature in hospital parking lots, lounges, restrooms, and
restaurants and that security guards are not to “forbid” employees from soliciting on their own
time, to engage in surveillance of such activities or to “spy” on union meetings or union
activities. Further, according to Bruce Hatten, who is a labor relations specialist for Respondent
and a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, “some time after we learned
that there was a new union forming,” Respondent commenced issuing small cards to its
managers and supervisors, on the front of which cards are set forth Respondent’s
solicitation/distribution rules and on the back of which are set forth rules for how the managers
and supervisors should and should not act with regard labor relations matters.
As stated above, Respondent’s restaurants are not considered to be work areas in which
employee solicitations and distributions of literature are prohibited. In this regard, Respondent
maintains large, full service cafeterias at its Summit Hospital campus and at its Alta Bates
Hospital campus. The former facility’s cafeteria is located on the first floor and accommodates
between 150 and 300 people, and that the latter facility’s cafeteria is located on the first floor
near the front lobby and seats approximately 200 individuals. Each campus’s cafeteria is
divided into a service area in which patrons select food and then pay for their food selections
and a dining area in which are located chairs and tables so that patrons can sit and eat their
food. At the Summit Hospital campus, the food service and dining areas of the cafeteria are
separated by an open space5 from three rooms or annexes,6 two of which are divided by a
folding partition, and, adjacent to the cafeteria at the Alta Bates Hospital campus is an
auditorium. The cafeterias at both facilities are open to and utilized by the public, visitors to
patients, employees and staff doctors, visiting physicians, outpatients, and patients’ family

3 Apparently, while in a hospital cafeteria, non-employees may sit and have a meal as long
as they are not disruptive.
4 The solicitation/distribution policy states that an employee “must not” be identified with
Respondent while engaged in soliciting or distributing literature, meaning that he or she must be
out of uniform and not wearing his or her identification badge while doing so.
5 Francis Kidd, Respondent’s administrative director for support services, described this
area as a corridor. However one describes it, viewing Respondent’s Exhibits eight and nine, it
is apparent that the dining area tables and chairs are close by this area.
6 These are referred to as annex A, annex B, and annex C.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
members. Because of dietary restrictions, patients are normally prohibited from eating in the
cafeterias; however, they do occasionally sit at the tables with their families. Employees utilize
the cafeterias for their lunches and during their break periods, and only between five percent
and ten percent of the customers of the cafeterias are non-employees.
Employees have historically utilized the cafeterias for distributing literature, selling
various items, solicitations, and for collecting union dues. Thus, employees testified, without
contradiction, that, without restriction and with the tacit consent of managers, who have been
among the purchasers, they and co-workers have sold church and school raffle tickets, dinner
tickets, and food items such as peanuts and egg rolls in the cafeterias by approaching other
employees or by walking from table to table and that, without impediment from Respondent until
the events described infra, employees have regularly solicited their co-workers for religious,
charitable, or union-related purposes and distributed literature to them indirectly by leaving
leaflets on tables or directly by hand. Further, outside vendors also have been permitted to sell
items inside both campuses but not inside the cafeteria dining areas. Thus, upon receiving
permission from Respondent, outside organizations or individuals are allowed to place tables
and to sell items such as books, candy, leather items, or jewelry in the open area or corridor7
beside the cafeteria in the Summit Hospital campus and in the lobby area and the auditorium of
the Alta Bates Hospital campus. Other outside organizations, such as banks and credit unions,
are permitted to set up in these areas and solicit for their respective organizations, giving away
free pens or stress balls along with application forms.
There is no dispute that Respondent maintains no written rule or policy regarding the
conduct of meetings inside the cafeterias at its facilities; nor is there any such written policy,
prohibiting outside organizations from conducting meetings in the cafeterias. Indeed, several of
the witnesses, who testified on behalf of the General Counsel, stated that they were unaware of
any restrictions, placed by Respondent, upon the holding of meetings in its cafeterias.
Witnesses, including Beverly Griffith, the alleged discriminatee, Lawana Williams, a member of
the SEIU-UHW bargaining committee and a shop steward, and DeAnn Horne, also a member of
the SEIU-UHW bargaining committee and a steward, each testified that, prior to the trusteeship,
SEIU-UHW stewards and union representatives advertised and used Respondent’s cafeterias to
meet with bargaining unit employees/members and to conduct general membership meetings
without interference by Respondent. According to Griffith, the SEIU-UHW stewards would
conduct such meetings “as often as we need to,” usually three or four times a year, and, at the
Summit Hospital campus, these were held “in the far left” of the cafeteria, near the open space
and the annex rooms. She added that the stewards would move tables together and place
literature on them for members to take and read. Williams testified that SEIU-UHW agents have
utilized the cafeteria for meetings-- “we‘ve had meetings . . . where we vote on contract issues.
We’ve had steward meetings there. Just general membership meetings,” normally on a monthly
basis. These meetings would be held in “. . . the corner right on the side, right there on the

7 In describing where vendors set up for sales, employees, who testified on behalf of the
General Counsel, described the area as the dining area.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
annex wall.”8 Likewise, Horne testified that the SEIU-UHW stewards would use the cafeteria at
the Alta Bates Hospital campus for meetings with employee/members. She recalled doing so
“quite a few times;” at least two or three stewards “. . . sat at a table . . . and we’d hand out
literature and discuss what was going on with the union at that particular time.” Also, according
to Griffith and Horne, the California Nurses Association would use the cafeterias for meetings
with Respondent’s nurses, and Griffith testified that she has seen Respondent’s student nurses
sitting at table and, without eating, meeting with their instructors.
As an example of the foregoing, Griffith testified, without contradiction, regarding
participating at a January 29 SEIU-UHW membership meeting in the Summit Hospital campus
cafeteria. According to Griffith, in order to publicize the meeting, notices, reading SEIU-UHW
membership meeting in the cafeteria from 6:00am-7:00pm on January 29, had been posted on
break room bulletin boards and on the union’s bulletin board next to the cafeteria door and
distributed to employee/members. Griffith added that Respondent was aware of the meeting in
the cafeteria as “. . . they can read it just like everybody else can if they pass the union bulletin
board,” and as she observed managers, including Bruce Hatten, inside the cafeteria during the
day. Also, approximately 45 minutes after the meeting commenced, Griffith had a conversation
with Hatten in front of the elevator in the main lobby area. She initiated the conversation
because she thought it “very odd” that Hatten would be standing outside the cafeteria so early in
the day, and she asked why he was there so early. Hatten replied that Respondent had
received a letter, advising it that SEIU-UHW had been placed into trusteeship and that the
trustees wanted Respondent to “obey their instructions.” Griffith asked since when had
Respondent “obeyed the union . . .” and said Respondent’s employees were the union, not
“downtown.” As to the conduct of the meeting, as was their normal practice, the stewards set
up for it by moving tables together in the far left corner of the cafeteria by the annex walls. The
meeting lasted the entire work day, and “it was just a general membership meeting that was
scheduled a month or two months . . . to bring people up on what was going on, any questions
or any concerns on their behalf.” It was conducted by the chief steward, Deborah Kirtman,
without any SEIU-UHW agents being present, and Griffith helped during her lunch period and
morning and afternoon break periods, spending her time soliciting bargaining unit employees to
execute the decertification petition. She further testified that “people would come in, sit down,
eat their lunch [at the steward’s tables], and we would talk” and that the stewards would
“sometimes” walk to other tables in order to solicit employees to come back to the area in which
the stewards were sitting-- “we would ask them to come back and talk, if [they] didn’t, we would
go to them,” carrying petition materials. Griffith personally observed stewards going to other
tables in order to solicit unit employees in that regard and testified she had never been told such
activity was not permitted.9

8 Bruce Hatten admitted that he was aware that the SEIU-UHW stewards would conduct
meetings with bargaining unit employees in the left-hand corner of the Summit Hospital campus
cafeteria-- “Periodically I’ve seen them in there”-- and that the stewards were never disciplined
for conducting such meetings. According to him, “. . . as long as they would have small quiet
meetings . . . they weren’t disrupting anything, we didn’t have a problem with that. I didn’t have
a problem with that.” While denying he ever observed literature being distributed, Hatten was
contradicted by his pre-trial affidavit in which he stated “I am sure that SEIU stewards came into
the cafeteria prior to the trusteeship, handed out flyers, and did other things to encourage
support for SEIU.”
9 Hatten was present inside the courtroom throughout the trial and failed to deny being
aware of what occurred on January 29.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
While conceding the lack of any written rules or policy regarding the conducting of
meetings in its cafeterias, Bruce Hatten asserted that Respondent’s policy was a matter of
“practice,” where people “. . . can’t take over the cafeteria having meetings that are disruptive,
basically not being used for what the cafeteria is intended to be used for.” He added that what
Respondent permitted inside its cafeterias were “small quiet meetings” that “weren’t disrupting
anything;” however, any type of activity during which the group “. . . draws attention to [it]self in
a way disturbing to the environment” is not tolerated. With regard to the Summit Hospital
campus cafeteria, Francis Kidd, Respondent’s administrative director for support services,
denied that the dining area was available for meetings-- “you can’t schedule a meeting in the
cafeteria because it is not listed for a meeting room”-- and added that, if there came a time
where an event seemed like a meeting, “we would require them to leave the cafeteria and book
a room like everybody else.”10 However, under further questioning, Kidd began to backtrack.
Thus, when asked about the student nurses, he conceded that “from time to time you might see
an instructor having breakfast with their students.” On said occasions, “. . . they’re sitting in one
of the booths having breakfast, and . . . they might have a textbook open or they might have
some paperwork in front of them.” Then asked if union representatives hold meetings in the
cafeteria, Kidd said that “if they’re sitting at a table in a small group of people, they could be
sitting there having that meeting . . . .” Asked about shop stewards meetings in the cafeteria, he
repeated, “if they’re sitting at a table, someone on a break sits down with them and has their
coffee on a break with a union rep, to me that’s not a meeting,” and, if two tables were pushed
together, it would be permissible for “eight, ten maybe” employees to sit with them. He added
that the people must be eating; “we wouldn’t just let people sit there if they weren’t a customer.”
As to when such gatherings would become a prohibited meeting, Kidd averred that, if tables
were moved and chairs set up in a “classroom style” and, if someone set up an easel and began
pointing at it, “I’d be concerned.” As to the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria, Kidd was not
aware of any outside organizations, which scheduled meetings there. He added that the same
rules, as enforced at the Summit Hospital campus, would apply to prohibited meetings and
permitted group gatherings. Richard Hinshaw, Respondent’s director of employee and labor
relations, was emphatic that “we don’t allow any meetings in the cafeteria[s]” at our facilities.
However, he added that employees “. . . may have met with people in the cafeteria and talked
about union business, which is fine, but to conduct a union meeting in the cafeteria is not
allowed. Asked to define a meeting, Hinshaw stated, “a meeting is where it’s being conducted
by a facilitator employed by the union on union issues, and he’s using our facility, the cafeteria,
where people sit down and eat, to discuss union business with employees, that is a union
meeting.”11 He then compared such a prohibited event to a permissible gathering where “. . . if
two or three people are sitting at a table and they’re talking about union issues, that’s . . . not a
union meeting.” However, such would become prohibited if the union agent is “. . . disrupting
people from taking their break and getting back to work . . . .” Given the example of ten people
sitting at two tables, which are pushed together, and discussing union business, Hinshaw
contradicted Kidd, saying “it would not be okay.” Asked about shop stewards having meetings
with bargaining unit employees in the cafeterias, Hinshaw testified “. . . if they’re conducting a
meeting that disrupts the function of the cafeteria, that would not be okay. But, if they’re talking
to people about . . . union business, that’s fine as long as they’re not disrupting the purpose of
the cafeteria.” Asked what he meant by the “purpose of the cafeteria,” he stated “. . . if
somebody is . . . standing up and walking around, and yelling at people, that’s disrupting. If

10 Kidd testified that the only rooms at the Summit Hospital campus which may be reserved
for meetings are Annex rooms A, B, and C.
11 Such a prohibited meeting could involve as few as two or four individuals “. . . depending
on how loud, how boisterous, what they’re doing.” Further, what would proscribe the conduct of
the union agent would be any attempt “to gather an audience.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
they’re sitting there talking in a normal voice about whatever issues they had . . . that would be
acceptable.” Thereupon, contradicting his earlier testimony, Hinshaw conceded “. . . you may
have two tables pulled together and they’re sitting there talking . . . in a normal voice, they’re
eating . . . their lunch and . . . not taking over tables . . . for purposes other than the cafeteria
use, then that would be okay.” As an example of what Respondent prohibited in its cafeterias,
Hinshaw pointed to an October 13, 2004 letter (R. Exh. No. 17) he sent to SEIU Local 250, the
predecessor to SEIU-UHW, in which he referred to a flyer advertising a general membership
meeting for the next day in the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria and wrote that such a
meeting was prohibited under Respondent’s “procedures” and “use of meeting space.”
However, he testified that he envisioned the labor organization having an “assembly” and would
not have objected to a business agent merely sitting at a table and meeting with bargaining unit
employees.
Regarding the alleged discriminatee’s activities on behalf of SEIIU-UHW and the NUHW,
Beverly Griffith, who worked at the Summit Hospital campus for 31 years in the environmental
services department (EVS), performing housekeeping work, until her termination by Respondent
on April 6, was a member of SEIU-UHW and its predecessor, SEIU, Local 250, at all times
during her employment at the hospital. The record establishes that, throughout her employment
tenure, Griffith was an active participant in union affairs. Thus, she served as a steward and
chief steward,12 represented co-workers in numerous grievance and Weingarten disciplinary
meetings, and served on the employees’ bargaining committee during contract negotiations. In
the latter regard, she routinely discussed contractual issues with her co-workers, and during
bargaining for a successor to the parties’ most recent collective-bargaining agreement, she
attended and participated in, at least, eight negotiating sessions. The record further establishes
that, after SEIU imposed trusteeship upon SEIU-UHW, while Griffith continued working as a
steward for SEIU-UHW, she immediately became an active supporter of the NUHW’s organizing
campaign, participating in the solicitation of decertification petition signatures13 and “I was one
of the ones that let folks in to take it over to our CEO, Warren Kirk’s office.” There is no dispute
that Respondent became aware of the NUHW’s organizing efforts and the campaign to decertify
SEIU-UHW almost immediately after the onset of the latter’s trusteeship. Thus, Hatten
confirmed that, as early as January 27, he himself learned that the SEIU-UHW bargaining unit
employees were organizing for the NUHW, conceding that “I perceived that” employees were
soliciting co-workers for their support for the NUHW. Further, while Hatten denied having
suspicions as early as February that Griffith was involved in the NUHW organizing (“I couldn’t
say for certain.”),14 it is clear that Respondent—and, most certainly, Hatten-- did, in fact, harbor
such a belief at that early date. Thus, on February 20, Richard Hinshaw, sent the following e-
mail and attachments to several other management officials, including Hatten-- “Carolyn and Jill
found these flyers on the Summit Campus yesterday. Pete Clayton and Beverly Griffith have

12 For the performance of some of her responsibilities on behalf of SEIU-UHW, Griffith
served as a “lost timer.” The “Lost Time” provision of the most recent collective-bargaining
agreement permits one of Respondent’s bargaining unit employees to take up to six months
leave in order to perform union-related activities. Taking advantage of this contract provision,
for six months in 2008 and for an additional three months, from approximately November 2008
until the imposition of the trusteeship in January 2009, Griffith took leave from her EVS duties to
serve as a full-time SEIU-UHW representative for the bargaining unit employees at
Respondent’s facilities.
13 Her first activity in this regard was during the aforementioned January 29 meeting.
14 Hatten did concede becoming aware of Griffith’s involvement in the NUHW’s organizing
campaign “at some point in time” prior to her termination.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
been around the campus at night reportedly.”15 The two documents, attached to Hinshaw’s e-
mail, appear to be copies of NUHW campaign literature.
2. The February 17 Water-Spilling Incident and Respondent’s Subsequent Written
Warning to Griffith
Turning to the first of the alleged unfair labor practices, Carlos Hernandez, a staff
development assistant with the Service Employees International Union, who was assigned to
work with SEIU-UHW after the imposition of the trusteeship, testified that he and a co-worker,
Erica McDuffy, had been assigned to visit Respondent’s facilities and ascertain who, amongst
the bargaining unit employees, were the stewards and who were the members of the
employees’ bargaining committee and that, on February 17, they were visiting Respondent’s
Alta Bates Hospital campus. According to Hernandez, as he and McDuffy were walking toward
the cafeteria, he heard voices behind him. He turned and recognized an employee, whom he
had encountered at the Summit Hospital campus, Beverly Griffith16 and another woman, named
Jocelyn, whom Hernandez knew as a NUHW agent, and they were pointing and yelling “. . . we
were scabs, and the scabs are here.” Hernandez and McDuffy continued walking towards the
cafeteria, passing other employees, who also yelled “the scabs are here.” Once inside the
cafeteria,17 they sat down at a table, and, eventually, Griffith, who had followed them into the
cafeteria, sat at a table next to the one at which Hernandez and McDuffy were seated and
talking. After a while, Hernandez noticed that Griffith arose, walked away, eventually returned
with two cups of water, sat next to him at the adjoining table,18 and placed the two cups of water
in front of her. The SEIU agent, who averred that he and Erica were attempting to “ignore”
Griffith because he did not want to become involved in any sort of “provocation” and denied
speaking to her, then recalled, “I kept talking to Erica when I was sitting like this, then I saw the
water just coming toward me. And I got up, grabbed my notebook, the information that I had,
and I [asked] her, why are you doing this? . . . Erica said we’ve got to stop this, that’s it. So
then she went to call security.” According to Hernandez, he arose because “my things were
getting wet.” After McDuffy reported on what had occurred to a security officer, Griffith
approached the officer, and said whatever happened was “an accident.” Asked to describe
exactly what had occurred, Hernandez replied, “That, I don’t know. I can’t tell you if that was an
accident or not, but what I can tell you is like the way she was sitting with two cups in front of me
and I saw a move . . . .” He denied becoming wet as a result or the water spill-- “No, not really.”

15 Clayton was an SEIU-UHW business representative, who had been forced out of his
position subsequent to the trusteeship.
16 Hernandez claimed that Griffith previously had been rude to him at the Summit Hospital
campus. Hernandez testified that he and co-workers had gone to that facility to meet the SEIU-
UHW staff in the cafeteria. They were about to depart when he overheard a bargaining unit
employee speaking on his cell phone and saying “they’re here.” A few minutes later as
Hernandez and the others were about to board an elevator, he encountered Griffith. “And it was
not, I mean a way to talk to her. She started screaming and yelling at us. And that’s basically
the first experience like this that I have with her.” He recalled Griffith saying “. . . what fucking
part don’t you understand motherfuckers or something like that. That’s what she yelled at us”
17 Hernandez testified that he and McDuffy were in the cafeteria as “we went to talk to
workers and pass out flyers.” He did not recall ordering any food while in the cafeteria, and no
one denied him permission to engage in his union activities.
18 Hernandez estimated they were no more than a foot or two apart.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
Beverly Griffith did not dispute that the water spilling incident occurred.19 According to
the alleged discriminatee, on February 17 after concluding her work shift at the Summit Hospital
campus, “I went [to the Alta Bates Hospital campus] to talk to the PM shift about the trusteeship”
and was in the cafeteria, speaking to bargaining unit employees. Griffith continued, “. . . I was
sitting in the cafeteria and two reps from the International SEIU came into the cafeteria, and
they sat down at a table where I was sitting. And they were trying to convince me that there
wasn’t going to be any vote . . . and that I should get on board with them to continue the
bargaining that was taking place. And I stressed to them I wasn’t interested. . . . And after I’d
had enough of it, I picked up my coat and my coat hit a Dixie cup of water and the water spilled
over and it went on the floor between the cracks of the table, and they . . . had some flyers and
maybe water may have gotten on the flyers. . . .”20 One of the union reps, Erica McDuffy,
accused Griffith of spilling the water on her21 and threatened report the incident to the police.
Then, the two SEIU agents left the cafeteria. Shortly thereafter, Griffith also left the dining area
and observed the two SEIU agents speaking to hospital security guards and accusing Griffith of
deliberately spilling the water. Griffith approached and asked what McDuffy was talking about
because she was not even wet from the water. The alleged discriminatee then told the guards
that the water spill had been merely an accident, but a guard said he would have to make a
report of the incident. During her testimony, Griffith was emphatic that no water spilled on either
Hernandez or McDuffy; rather, such spilled onto the table and down to the floor.
Respondent’s security officer, _______ Watts, did, in fact, create a report regarding the
incident, (R. Exh. No. 16). Therein, the officer, whose title for the report was “union activity,”
wrote that “new union reps” Hernandez, and McDuffy, “old union rep,” Jocelyn Olick, and Griffith
were sitting at the same table and that “Beverly Griffith turned a cup of water over at the table
and it spilled on Hernandez.” Further, the report notes that the security officers observed “a
considerable amount of water” on one of the cafeteria tables and on the floor below and that
Griffith said what occurred was an accident. Finally, the report quotes Hernandez as saying “He
was sitting at a table with Ms. Griffith and Ms. Griffith knocked over a glass of water and the
water spilled on him.”
Three days later, on Friday, February 20, the same day he received an e-mail message,
which linked Griffith to the distribution of NUHW literature on Respondent’s property, Bruce
Hatten was informed of the October 17 incident. Thus, according to him, Erica McDuffy
telephoned him, complaining that bargaining unit employees were placing NUHW literature on
the SEIU-UHW bulletin boards and, as a result, demanding that the locks on the bulletin boards
be changed. She then turned to the water-spill incident, asserting that she had an “incident”
with Beverly Griffith in the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria a night or two before involving

19 During cross-examination, Griffith admitted having seen Hernandez and McDuffy at the
Summit Hospital campus earlier in the day and having seen both SEIU-UHW agents prior to that
day “maybe three times.” She denied having any hostile “relationship” with them.
20 Griffith denied saying anything derogatory to either of the SEIU-UHW representatives,
specifically denying calling them scabs. With regard to the tone of their conversation, ‘I don’t
think that it was calm. I think they were aggressive and I was aggressive. . . . Our tone wasn’t
like a low key tone, it was a little high-pitched.”
21 During cross-examination, asked for McDuffy’s reaction to the water spilling, Griffith said
“she sat there for a minute and then she just got up and said . . . ‘you ain't going to spill water on
us . . . intentionally.’”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
the spilling of some water, that Griffith had been “rude” to her at the time of the water spill,22 “. . .
and that water was spilled on a co-worker of hers . . . Carlos Hernandez.” After speaking to
McDuffy,23 whom he believed as “. . . she didn’t seem to be like [she] wanted to do anything
other than report . . . and ask that we investigate it,” and after obtaining a copy of the security
officer’s report regarding the incident24 but failing to interview either Hernandez or the officer,
who compiled the report, Hatten perceived the matter as an employee deliberately spilling a cup
of water on a guest-- “the issue was that [Griffith spilled] water in an attempt to get it on
somebody . . . ”-- and as a matter of significant import “because . . . even though it was an SEIU
rep, they’re still a guest and we still expect people to . . . treat guests appropriately.”25
Notwithstanding his perception of what had occurred, asserting he “normally” obtains “another
side of the story,” Hatten testified that, at approximately 3:00 that afternoon, he went to the EVS
department office on the ground floor level and “. . . tried to have a meeting with [Griffith] to ask
her side of [the incident].” In this regard, according to Hatten, he met Griffith’s supervisor, Tito
Aquino, and they spent the next 25 minutes searching for the alleged discriminatee,
unsuccessfully paging her and looking for her in her assigned work areas on the fourth floor of
the building. At approximately 3:30, they returned to the EVS office and stationed themselves
across from the entrance to the patient transportation department room in which a time clock,
utilized by the EVS department employees in order to clock in and out, is located. Moments
later, they observed Griffith enter the EVS department office in order to leave her pager prior to
clocking out. When she walked out of the office, Hatten further testified, he approached and
said “. . . `I’ve been looking for you.’” Griffith asked why, and Hatten replied “`I have somebody
who has alleged that you were rude to them and knocked water on them.’” Griffith retorted
“’Says who?’” At this point, Hatten recalled, “I showed her the security report,” and, after
glancing at the document for no more than 10 seconds, Griffith responded “. . . `It says right
here it’s an accident.’” To this, Hatten asked “. . . `That’s an accident . . . ?’” Without replying,
Griffith turned around, went over to the time clock to punch out, and walked away. According to
Hatten, the entire conversation lasted no longer than “thirty seconds,” and, after Griffith left, he
and Aquino went into the EVS department office in order to ascertain whether Griffith’s pager
was operating properly. After determining that it was, “. . . I went back to my office.” Asked
where Aquino stood as he approached and spoke to Griffith, Hatten stated “He was in the
supervisor’s office checking employees out.” He denied that Aquino witnessed the conversation
as it was “kind of impromptu.”26
Beverly Griffith testified that she worked her normal work shift on February 20. Shortly
before finishing her shift, “. . . I got a call from one of my co-workers and they said that Bruce

22 Hatten was unable to recall McDuffy saying how Griffith had acted rudely except “I think
she said that [Griffith] was loud . . . .” On this point, he was contradicted by his pre-trial affidavit
wherein he said he could not recall McDuffy saying how Griffith had acted rudely.
23 Respondent failed to call McDuffy as a witness and failed to explain her absence.
Accordingly, I shall draw a negative inference from Respondent’s failures in the above regards.
24 Hatten conceded that the report said nothing about Hernandez pointing to a wet spot on
his clothing. While the security guard, who drafted the security report, wrote that Hernandez
said that water had been spilled on him, during his testimony, Hernandez made such assertion
and never explained the discrepancy between his testimony and what he told the security
guard.
25 Hatten also conceded that Hernandez never claimed that Griffith deliberately spilled the
water on him.
26 While conceding it is “generally” customary to take notes during an investigatory
interview, Hatten admitted he failed to draft notes of his putative conversation with Griffith either
during or after their meeting.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
Hatten was in the EVS department and that they overheard my name. And it was about 3:25
and so when I came downstairs they said that he was there and he was waiting for me . . . .”
According to the alleged discriminatee, as she walked down the hallway toward the EVS
department office, she observed Hatten and Aquino standing outside the door to the office.
“And so, I walked past Bruce Hatten and Tito [where they were talking], and I turned [in] my
pager and I signed out, and then I clocked out and went home. And I said nothing to them.”
Corroborating Griffith and contradicting Hatten, Tito Aquino, who supervises the housekeeping
employees, including Griffith, testified that during the afternoon on February 20, Hatten came to
his office and said he wanted to speak to Griffith. Unable to reach her by pager, Aquino and
Hatten went looking for her on the fourth floor, her normal work area, but were unable to find
her. Then, at approximately 3:25, “close to quitting time,” they returned to the EVS department
office and stood together “outside the office by the hallway.” Thereafter, “. . . we were seeing
people come in . . . carrying soiled mops . . . and rags, and that’s . . . before coming to clock out.
. . . As we were standing there . . . we saw Ms. Griffith went to the time clock and [clock] out
right away” and return her pager to the EVS office. According to Aquino, “I assume she’s going
home. . . we didn’t stop her from leaving at all.” Then, “. . . . Mr. Hatten told me that she had
already clocked out, so we will meet again on Monday morning.” Asked by me whether Hatten
was able to speak to Griffith, Aquino replied, “No, sir.”
There is no dispute that, on the following Monday, February 23, Respondent ordered
Griffith to report to Bruce Hatten’s office in the human resources department office and that,
during the Weingarten interview there, Hatten gave a written warning notice, (R. Exh. No. 4), to
the alleged discriminatee. As to why he decided to give Griffith a written warning over what
appears to have been a rather trivial incident, averring he believed McDuffy’s assertion that the
water spilling was intentional,27 Hatten explained that he wanted to give Griffith an opportunity
to give her side of what occurred, and “. . . when she didn’t want to give me her side . . . other
than it just was an accident, that changed my mind, that made me believe, well, maybe she did
do that. . . . You say it’s an accident, explain to me how it was an accident. She had no interest
to do that.” Asked by me if his decision was based more on Griffith’s behavior after the fact,
Hatten replied, “I would say it weighed more heavily, yeah.”
However, not only was Hatten’s testimony, regarding speaking to Griffith, contradicted
by Aquino, but also what occurred during the disciplinary meeting casts further doubt upon
Hatten’s explanation for the warning notice. Thus, presumably believing she might be
disciplined for the water spilling incident, Griffith asked Lawana Williams, a co-worker in the
EVS department and another steward for SEIU-UHW, to accompany her for the meeting. They
reported to Bruce Hatten’s office where they encountered Hatten and Tito Aquino. During the
discussion, according to Griffith, Hatten handed her the foregoing written warning notice “for
misconduct and inappropriate behavior,” based upon her actions on February 17. Executed by
Hatten, the warning notice accused Griffith of “. . . intentionally knock[ing] over a glass of water
that spilled onto a guest. The guest complained to hospital security but decided not to
summons [sic] the police department at the time of the incident. This behavior is unacceptable
and will not be tolerated.” Upon reading the document, Griffith testified, she was “shocked and
“upset” and complained “`how could you give me a discipline and you haven’t even asked my
side of the story?’” Thereupon, “. . . Hatten took the paper and he threw it across the table at
Griffith, saying “`it sounds like me.’” As a response, Griffith wrote across the bottom of the
document “This is harassment by SEIU and Bruce Hatten, No investigation by my part. This is
back door dealing by management and Alta Bates Summit to discipline me for union activities.
Anyone can say and accuse me, and management believes it, Bruce said, it sounds like me and

27 Hatten conceded not pressing McDuffy for details of Griffith’s “deliberate” act.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
13
something I would do.” Williams corroborated Griffith, recalling that Hatten gave the former the
written warning and “. . . said that he had received a complaint against Beverly . . . that she had
knocked over some water intentionally on some guests of the hospital . . . . Beverly . . . told him
. . . that he didn’t hear her side of what happened and asked him . . . was he just going to
accuse her of knocking water over on somebody intentionally. And he stated that because of
whom she was, her involvement with the [NUHW], it was believable that she did this. . . . She
kind of . . . repeated what he had just said” and “she looked at me and said “`Can you believe
this?’” Finally, when asked if Hatten responded to Griffith that, in fact, he had, spoken to her
three days before, Williams said, “No.” Likewise, Tito Aquino testified that Hatten read the
contents of the warning notice to Griffith and that after the latter read the document herself, she
asked Hatten who his witnesses were. He replied “people that were present.” To this, Griffith
asked why she wasn’t asked anything about the incident, and, rather than asserting that he had
spoken to her, Hatten merely reiterated “that [he] had already spoken to . . . people that were
present when the incident had happened.” With regard to Griffith’s writing on the bottom of the
warning notice, Aquino recalled that Griffith “. . . wrote it down because she . . . did say that this
is harassment, I’m not going to sign . . . .” Finally, as to whether he heard Hatten say to Griffith
“that sounds like something you would do,” Aquino said, “I don’t recall hearing anything like
that.”
3. The March 20 Incident at Respondent’s Summit Hospital Campus Cafeteria
The record reveals that, on March 20, the SEIU-UHW stewards, including Beverly
Griffith, who had requested and received a vacation day for March 20, Lawana Williams, and
Deborah Kirtman, a chief steward, conducted an all day “membership meeting” for the SEIU-
UHW bargaining unit employees in the Summit Hospital campus cafeteria, the same location at
which the January 29 membership meeting and prior similar meetings had been held; that, in
the days prior to March 20, the stewards, including Griffith, Kirtman, and Williams, posted and
distributed leaflets,28 announcing a March 20 membership meeting in the Summit Hospital
campus cafeteria from 6:00am until 7:00pm; and that the purposes for the meeting were to
afford the stewards an opportunity to “update” the bargaining unit employees on the status of
the trusteeship and the on-going contract negotiations and to solicit signatures for the
decertification petition. The record further reveals that, having become aware of the
membership meeting possibly from a flyer, on which the NUHW logo appears, Respondent
engaged in two separate courses of conduct in order to prevent or, at least, discourage its
SEIU-UHW bargaining unit employees from supporting another labor organization. First, in a
March 13 letter to the Union, Hinshaw demanded that, as Respondent’s facilities are private
property and as it does not permit outside organizations to conduct group meetings in the
cafeterias,29 “your group must cease and desist from holding or advertising `meetings’ on our

28 While Griffith and Williams each acknowledged distributing leaflets announcing the
membership meeting; both denied distributing any leaflets on which were printed a NUHW logo.
While a leaflet bearing a NUHW logo was offered and received as General Counsel’s Exhibit
No. 6, Griffith denied having seen it until being asked about it at the time she gave a pre-trial
affidavit to the General Counsel.
29 According to Bruce Hatten, “our sense, when we first heard about this . . . meeting, that
was advertised in our cafeteria by this other group, was that this was going to be a takeover of
the cafeteria with . . . rallies and noise and basically disrupting the flow of things.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14
premises.”30 Next, Respondent hired the services of Allied Barton Security Services, which
provides private security guards for employers, and, on March 20, two of its security guards
reported for work at Respondent’s Summit Hospital campus. One of the guards, Ronnie Parks,
who testified that “I was just told to report in a suit in order not to be confused with the regular
security,” arrived at the facility at approximately 6:15am and was escorted alone31 to the
cafeteria where he met Bruce Hatten. According to Parks, “Bruce showed me the letter that
was sent to the Union and . . . said that some of the employees were starting to form . . . a new
union so they posted notices that they were going to hold meetings in the cafeteria but they’re
not allowed to hold the meetings . . . this is not allowed . . . they can’t solicit funds and they can/t
hand out literature and . . . we’re there to observe . . . if any of those violations occur. . . .
anything that would disrupt the normal cafeteria operations.”32 According to Parks, Hatten was
clear the reason for the employees’ planned union activity that day was that “. . . they were in
the process of trying to form a new union.” He added that, if a prohibited meeting33 occurred,
Hatten gave the guards a camera in order “to take pictures of the violation,” and they had
notebooks in order “to take notes.” Also, Hatten instructed them to be “close enough” to
observe but they should not interfere with the employees and specified that “. . . if we
witness . . . actual violations occurring, to . . . call him and he’d come deal with it.” When he
finished explaining to Parks what he expected would happen that day, Hatten pointed to two
women, who were sitting at a table across the cafeteria, identified them as Beverly Griffith and
Deborah Kirtman, and “. . . explained that they’re the ones that will probably have the
meeting . . .”
Griffith testified that she arrived at the Summit Hospital campus cafeteria at “about” 6:00
in the morning and observed Kirtman sitting at a table in the “far right” corner of the dining area
and Hatten seated at a table in the far left corner of the room, the area in which the SEIU-UHW
stewards usually stationed themselves. Griffith walked over to Kirtman’s table and sat down
beside her. They placed stacks of two separate documents34 and a sign-up sheet on the table.
Moments later, according to the alleged discriminate, a “few” bargaining unit employees
approached their table, and the two stewards and the employees spoke about the decertification

30 At Respondent’s behest, its attorney sent a subsequent letter, dated March 18, to the law
firm, which represents the NUHW. In said letter, Respondent’s attorney demanded assurances
that NUHW, its officers, employees, and agents would “cease and desist from advertising and
holding `meetings’ on Respondent’s property.”
31 The other security officer had not yet arrived.
32 The other security guard, Thomas George, did not arrive until 7:30am, and, Hatten
“briefed” him as to the situation.
Respondent stipulated that Parks and George were its agents within the meaning of Section
2(13) of the Act.
33 Asked if Hatten ever explained his definition of a meeting, :Parks said, “. . . we discussed
that and my understanding was . . it has to be a group of people discussing the union business
. . . . to count as the meeting that we’re watching for. Obviously, they are allowed to gather and
speak socially, that doesn’t count as a meeting.” He added that the legitimacy of the meeting
would “. . . depend on the content of the conversation.” In this regard, numbers did not matter’
rather, “it was . . . the context of what they’re gathering to discuss. . . . if it was union business,
then our understanding was if they were speaking union business with a group of people, they
were holding a meeting that they were told not to.”
34 One document bore the photograph of former Board member, Peter Hurtgen, and
concerned whether employees would lose their contractual wages and benefits if they vote and
switch unions. The second document concerned Respondent’s and the SEIU-UHW’s most
recent bargaining positions on subcontracting.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
15
petition and other union matters. Eventually, the employees walked away, and Hatten and
Ronnie Parks35 approached the table. Standing in front of the two women, Hatten asked what
was going on “over here” and abruptly “snatched” some papers from Griffith’s hands. She
“tried” to grab the documents back from him, “. . . and he told me I couldn’t have them. And
I told him that if he didn’t [return the documents], I [would] call the police on him.” Hatten
returned all but one document, began reading it, and remarked that it concerned the on-going
negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement between the parties. Then, Hatten
turned toward Kirtman and reached for the documents in the stacks of flyers in from of her,
including the sign-in sheet, knocking over a coffee cup while doing so, but Kirtman was quicker,
placing her hands on the papers, and urged Hatten to calm down.36 Hatten then glanced at
Griffith’s cell phone, which she had plugged into a wall socket, and, when he moved as if to
reach for it, Griffith warned him not to touch it. Thereupon, Hatten announced to Griffith and
Kirtman “. . . that we [were] not allowed to be there conducting any meetings for any outside
unions. And he said that we [were] not allowed to pass out flyers,37 to solicit funds, and he said
we were trespassing.”38 Kirtman responded that she and Griffith continued to be SEIU-UHW
members and had a right to use the cafeteria “and to inform our members.” At that point, Hatten
turned and, along with Parks, walked out of the cafeteria.
Bruce Hatten initially denied attempting to terminate or impede whatever union activities,
which Griffith and Kirtman attempted to engage in on March 20, and specifically denied
approaching the table at which they were seated, grabbing a stack of documents, and saying
they were not allowed to distribute them inside the cafeteria. Asked if other witnesses were
lying about his conduct, Hatten reiterated he could not recall the incident. Moments later,
Hatten reversed himself, admitting he reached for the stack of papers in front of the two women
because he wanted to discover the reason for the announced meeting and the subject matter of
the documents which the women were prepared to distribute. Asked if he also reached for a
sign-in sheet, Hatten denied doing so, but, upon being confronted with his pre-trial affidavit and
questioned as to whether Kirtman attempted to stop him from seeing it, he conceded the truth.
Further, Hatten conceded informing the women that they could neither distribute the flyers nor
engage in soliciting.
Parks testified that, after Hatten pointed out Griffith and Kirtman to him, he followed
Hatten as the latter walked over to the table at which the women were seated. According to
Park, “. . . Mr. Hatten asked how they were doing and what’s going on and they said nothing’s
going on. There was a table next to them had a bunch of different flyers laid out. And Mr.
Hatten asked them about what they were doing . . . are they planning on handing out the flyers.
They didn’t really answer. . . . And then Mr. Hatten [grabbed an entire stack of flyers], and they

35 At some point during the day, Parks introduced himself to Griffith.
36 Although not clear, at some point during the incident, Griffith reached into her handbag for
a tape recorder and told Hatten to speak into it.
37 Griffith testified that, prior to her conversation with Hatten that day, she had “never” been
informed that she was not allowed to distribute literature in the Summit Hospital campus
cafeteria.
38 Asked if Hatten specifically stated she was acting in violation of Respondent’s
solicitation/distribution policy, Griffith said, “No, I never heard that, that policy. He just said that
we could not be there to distribute flyers for another union or conduct a meeting.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
16
got upset,” saying he couldn’t do that, accusing him of harassing them, and asserting the
cafeteria was a public facility and they had a right to be there.39 Then, after the women became
quiet, Hatten returned all but one of the documents, “. . . and then he explained that they cannot
hold a meeting, they cannot distribute literature or flyers, and . . . they are not allowed to solicit
funds.”40
Griffith next testified that, after Hatten and Parks left their table, she and Kirtman stood,
picked up their documents, moved to the area of the dining room in which they “normally” sat,
pushed two tables together, placed their documents on the tables, and sat. Approximately 15
minutes later, she noticed Parks, another man wearing a similar dark suit, two regular hospital
security officers, and Susan Kessler, Respondent’s EVS director, entering the cafeteria
together. Moments later, Parks and Thomas George walked over to the area in which Griffith
and Kirtman were seated and sat down “not even four feet across from us at another table.”
Griffith testified that she stayed in the cafeteria for the remainder of the day until the announced
end of the meeting and that Parks and George also “. . . stayed there until 7:00 that night . . . . in
the same location,” each not moving unless he went to get something to eat or to use the
restroom.” During the day, Griffith asked who they were and what they were doing, “and they
said, `we’re here to monitor . . . and watch you.’” According to Griffith, notwithstanding the
surveillance, she spoke to approximately 114 bargaining unit employees about union matters
and distributed both of the above-described documents to them in the cafeteria during the day;
“I tried to talk with [them]” as they came through the cafeteria, eating meals or taking breaks
from work. “And some sat with us and some did not sit with us because they thought the [two
security officers were] with us.” She knew this was the fact as members would ask about the
identities of the two men and whether they were with Griffith and Kirtman.41
The deleterious effect of the guards’ presence was confirmed by Lawana Williams, who
helped draft and distribute the flyers, announcing the meeting.42 She testified that she was able
to go down to the cafeteria three times that day-- for her lunch and her two break periods at 9:30
in the morning and 2:30 in the afternoon. On her morning break, there were not many patrons
in the dining area, and those present were “kind of scattered” through the facility. Griffith and
Kirtman were sitting at a table and, in the same section, “a couple of guys” were sitting at a table
directly across from the two women and no more than a “few” feet from them. Williams walked
over to her co-workers’ table,43 and Griffith told her they “. . . were being watched by security.”
Williams further testified that she remained at the table with Griffith and Kirtman for 15 minutes
during which time only one bargaining unit employee came to their table. During her afternoon
break, she again observed the two security officers sitting at the same table across from Griffith.

39 Having been told that the women had announced a meeting in the cafeteria, Parks was
certain the meeting had not yet commenced at the time of the incident-- “it hadn’t occurred at
the time yet.”
40 In contrast to the treatment of Griffith and Kirtman on March 20, Carlos Hernandez
testified that he and McDuffy met with bargaining unit employees in Respondent’s cafeterias,
speaking to them about union matters and passing out flyers and that Respondent never
interfered with their activities.
41 Griffith testified that the guards’ presence in the cafeteria was “very uncommon. We’ve
had meetings like this in the past but never have we had guards sit at the table with us . . . .”
42 Williams recalled that the purpose of the meeting was to give bargaining unit employees
“information . . . pertaining to what was going on with the . . . trusteeship.” She denied that a
purpose was to solicit membership in the NUHW.
43 Flyers were stacked on the table. She recalled that one document contained a picture of
an NLRB member.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
17
According to Williams,44 on both occasions, the two security officers appeared to be paying
attention to what Griffith and Kirtman were doing; each had a notebook and would start writing
whenever employees approached the table.
Ronnie Parks testified that, after Hatten warned the women about what they couldn’t do,
they walked away from the table; that Tom George, the other guard, arrived at approximately
7:30 and Hatten “briefed him” as to the situation; and that Griffith and Kirtman soon left their
table and moved to another table in the back corner of the room. According to Parks, he and
George remained inside the Summit Hospital campus cafeteria until 7:15pm, and, in order to
observe Griffith’s and Kirtman’s activities, the two men stationed themselves at a table “roughly
across the aisle” from the women six to eight feet away with tables between them. As to what
occurred during the remainder of the day, Parks stated that “there were no actual meetings . . .
on Friday. . . . People would trickle over, a few at time. . . . but what conversation we could hear
was normal social conversation, it was not union business . . . .” Parks added that, sometimes
during the day, there were as many as eight employees gathered around Griffith and Kirtman,
with people standing when there were not enough seats. Also, while he did observe the two
women leave their table from time to time to go for food or to the restroom and, in the process,
stop and speak to other employees, “. . . it did not appear they were going around conducting
business.”45 As to the distribution of flyers, Parks did not observe the women handing their
flyers to employees, who stopped at their tables (“I didn’t see them leave the table with the
flyers”); however, during the day, he did observe employees, who were not carrying papers
when they entered, leave the dining room with papers in their hands. Finally, as to the security
officers’ effect on employees stopping at the tables, which Griffith and Kirtman had pushed
together, Parks stated that he heard approximately half of the employees, who approached the
tables, asking about him; “they asked who we were and Beverly explained that we were
security. . . .” Of those who asked, “probably four or five” employees immediately walked away
after learning who he was.
4. The March 23 Incidents at Respondent’s Alta Bates Hospital Campus Cafeteria
The record establishes that, just as on the prior Friday at the Summit Hospital campus,
the SEIU-UHW stewards scheduled another membership meeting for the bargaining unit
employees at Respondent’s Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria on Monday, March 23 from
6:30am until 7:00pm; that they advertised the time and location for the meeting by posting and
distributing flyers;46 and that Beverly Griffith, who had scheduled a vacation day for the event,
participated in the organizing and conducting of the meeting. According to Griffith, she and

44 With regard to the distribution of literature in the cafeteria, Williams said she had freely
distributed literature in the dining area prior to that day, including the flyer announcing the March
20 meeting.
45 As to whether what the two women did was disruptive of the operations of the cafeteria,
Parks said, “not the overall function, other than taking up the tables that they were at.”
Hatten conceded that he did not believe Griffith or Kirtman engaged in any misconduct
during that day, stating “what happened on Friday was nice, one, two person conversations,
there wasn’t a lot of attention drawn to them in having their discussions.” Therefore, he
permitted them to continue what they were doing.
46 As with General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 6, the flyer announcing the March 20 meeting,
Griffith denied seeing General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 9, the flyer announcing the March 23
meeting, until the time she gave her pre-trial affidavit.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
18
DeAnn Horne, a ward clerk for Respondent at the Alta Bates Hospital campus,47 arrived at the
latter campus at approximately 7:00 in the morning, immediately walked to the cafeteria where
they met Dee Mayberry, another steward, sat at a table in the far right corner of the dining area,
and placed stacks of the same documents, which the stewards had distributed the prior Friday,
on the table. Griffith testified that the purpose of the meeting was “to talk with my co-workers
about the trusteeship and to answer questions and concerns, and Horne testified that their
purpose was also “. . . to let people know what was going on with . . . the new [NUHW] and
[getting] . . . information out so people could feel a little more secure with . . . the union
vote . . . .” At that early hour, the cafeteria, which was under renovation at the time, was
sparsely filled with no more than 10 or 12 patrons, and Griffith immediately noticed that, across
the dining area, sitting at a table by a window were Bruce Hatten, Joan Davis, an HR specialist
for Respondent, Ronnie Parks, and another security guard, Mahir Said.48 There is no dispute
that, moments later, Hatten left the cafeteria, and Parks and Said arose, walked towards
Griffith’s table, and sat at a table no more than six feet behind the two women.
At that point, Horne announced she was going “upstairs” in order to inform bargaining
unit employees that Griffith was waiting for them in the cafeteria, and she then stood and walked
out of the cafeteria. While Horne was away, according to Griffith, “I got a chance to talk to a few
dietary workers . . . . I went to their table and they were . . . across from me.” At first, she stood,
but then she sat down and spoke to the employees, who were eating breakfast. “And I asked
them did they have any concerns and did they understand what was going on . . . . And they
[said] . . . we’re fine, we understand, we’re ready to vote.” After “maybe five, six, seven minutes,
or so,” Griffith walked back to her table. Kenny Hill, a chief steward for SEIU-UHW, came to her
table and sat, and, having been gone for no more than half an hour, Horne returned and took
her seat at Griffith’s table. Moments later, Griffith further testified, as the three employees were
talking amongst themselves, Hatten returned to the cafeteria and approached Griffith’s table.
He looked first at Hill and then at Horne and then where each was working. He then addressed
the three employees as a group, saying “`I need you to cease and disperse. . . . I’m giving you a
direct order to leave the premises now.’” He added that they were not to hand out any flyers.
Hearing Hatten’s instructions, Griffith, Horne, and Hill arose, and Griffith, who understood that
an employee must comply with a direct order and would be subject to discipline for failing or
refusing to do so, turned to Horne, said it was time to leave as they “were getting kicked out of
the cafeteria,” and asked to use Horne’s cell phone in order to arrange for a ride. Then, Hatten
repeated his order-- “`I’m giving you a direct order to leave the premises now.’” Griffith and
Horne immediately began gathering their documents and stuffing them in a bag, and Hatten
added, “`And, if you don’t leave before security comes, you will be suspended and you could be
terminated.’” Griffith and Horne began walking out of the cafeteria, with the former a foot or two
behind Horne; however, before they left the room, two security guards entered the cafeteria,49
“and they escorted us out of the cafeteria” and to the front doorway of the building. At the door,
Griffith looked back at the guards, and one told her she would have to leave Respondent’s

47 Horne was scheduled to be off work on March 23; however, she was called into work and
told to report “no later” than 9:00 a.m.
48 Parks testified that he reported to the Alta Bates Hospital campus at 6:15 a.m., that Mahir
Said arrived 45 minutes later that they met Bruce Hatten, that the latter gave them “basically the
same briefing” as on the prior Friday, that he (Parks) had the same camera, and that Hatten
again instructed him “to take pictures of violations.” According to Parks, they observed Griffith
and DeAnn Horne enter the cafeteria at approximately 7:30 a.m., and “we waited to see where
she was going to sit, so we could sit by to observe.”
49 Griffith testified that the security guards arrived before Hatten “even finished his
sentences.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
19
property. Asked if she said anything to Hatten during their confrontation or if she ever refused
to leave the cafeteria, Griffith answered “no” to both questions. Also, she denied that she
asserted her right to remain in the cafeteria or that Horne left the cafeteria by herself after
Hatten asked both women to leave. Finally, she specifically denied being told by Hatten that
she was suspended-- ‘My understanding was that I was given a direct order to leave and, if I
didn’t, I would be suspended.”50
Corroborating Griffith, Horne testified that, a short while after she returned to the
cafeteria and again sat at Griffith’s table, Hatten approached their table. She testified, “He
came up to the table and he says, I’m going to give both of you a direct order that you are to
cease and disperse your union activities and, if you don’t, you will be put on suspension with the
possibility of termination. And, if you’re not gone by the time the guards get here, you will be
suspended.” Horne was unable to recall Griffith saying anything to Hatten; however, she did
recall Hatten asking her where she was going. Horne replied she was going to work. Hatten
asked if she was going to Herrick, another facility owned by Respondent, and warned her not to
take any of the “stuff” with her. Horne replied that she did not work at Herrick. Thereupon, the
security guards arrived, and “. . . we proceeded to walk out . . . .” As they did so, according to
Horne, Griffith asked to use her cell phone and made a call. Horne estimated that only two or
three minutes elapsed from the time Hatten ordered them to leave and when they actually left
the cafeteria.51 Horne denied hearing Griffith argue with Hatten about their right to be in the
cafeteria and denied that Griffith ever refused to leave. Finally, asked if Hatten ever said to
Griffith that she was suspended, Horne replied, “no.”52
Ronnie Parks testified that the table, at which he and Said53 were sitting, was next to the
one at which Griffith was sitting. He confirmed that the crowd in the cafeteria was “sparse;”
however, “eventually,” a table across from them started filling with people, who appeared to be
hospital “service workers.” According to Parks, he observed Griffith leave her table and
approach the table at which the hospital employees were sitting.54 “And then she was talking
. . . . about everybody needs to give $25 to the new union . . . and that the dues are cheaper
than SEIU.” Hearing this, Parks immediately telephoned Hatten in order to inform him that
Griffith was committing a violation.55 After a while, Parks recalled, Griffith left this table, moved
to another table, at which employees were sitting, “behind her,” sat down, and “conversed” with
them about “union stuff.” Finishing her conversation, Griffith walked away from the second table
and returned to her table. Moments later, Hatten arrived, and “I informed him that Ms. Griffith

50 Having been a steward for several years, Griffith was well aware of the procedure when
an employee is suspended. Thus, the employee is immediately ordered to surrender his
security badge. According to Griffith, at no point that morning did Hatten demand that she turn
in her security identification.
51 Horne added that the security guards arrived two minutes after Hatten’s warning.
52 Horne said that, if suspended, “they would take your badge.” She added that such was
Respondent’s “practice,” and Hatten never asked for Griffith’s badge or said she should not
return for work the next day.
53 Respondent stipulated that Said acted as its agent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of
the Act.
54 Parks estimated the employees’ table was approximately 15 feet from where he was
sitting. As Griffith “can project pretty well,” and the cafeteria was not filled, he could hear what
Griffith said “very clearly.”
55 Parks recalled hearing additional conversation between Griffith, who stood at first and
then sat down, and the employees at the table. “I don’t remember details. I just remember it
was . . . the union stuff. I don’t remember every detail.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
20
had crossed over to the other table and sat with . . . six people . . . and was . . . asking for funds
for the new union, about it stagnating and that their dues were cheaper than SEIU’s.” Then,
Hatten asked Parks to accompany him over to where Griffith, Horne, and Hill were sitting. They
approached Griffith’s table, and Hatten “. . . explained that they’re not allowed to hand out flyers,
solicit funds or hold a meeting and that they needed to cease and desist these activities and that
they were being asked to leave the premises immediately . . . .” I don’t believe [either Griffith or
Horne] said anything; they just kind of looked at him with kind of a blank stare. Hatten then
repeated that he was giving them “a direct order” and, if they refused, “. . . you can be put on
administrative suspension.” Hearing this, Horne said “`I’m outa here,’” stood up, and “departed.”
However, rather than following, Griffith “. . . took out her cell phone and said she was going to
call her lawyer.”56 Observing Griffith’s actions, Hatten turned to Parks, said, “. . . `it doesn’t
appear that she wants to comply with the direct order’ . . . ,” and instructed Parks to call for
Respondent’s security guards. Parks then “radioed for security,” and, when he finished, Hatten
told Griffith “. . . that if she is not departing before security arrives, that he will accept that as
refusal to comply with the direct order.” Thereupon, in what seemed to Parks as reluctant
compliance with Hatten’s instructions, Griffith slowly began gathering her stacks of leaflets and
packing the documents into a bag. She had not yet completed her preparations to leave when
Respondent’s security guards entered the cafeteria,57 and upon their arrival, Hatten said to
Griffith, “. . . `you’re on administrative suspension because you haven’t complied.’”58 He then
told the guards to escort Griffith out and told Griffith she was not allowed to be in any of
Respondent’s facilities pending an investigation.59
Bruce Hatten testified that he went directly to the cafeteria after being informed that
Parks had called and reported something had occurred there. Arriving, he observed 35 to 40
patrons sitting in the entire dining area,60 and everything appeared to be “normal” with people
seating, eating, and talking. Hatten immediately met with Parks and Said, who told him Griffith
had been “disruptive” in that she had stood up from where she had been seated and began
addressing the people around her, “talk[ing] loud enough . . . saying something about . . . this
new union. She was talking about them needing to raise funds in order to stay afloat . . . .”61
With the guards following, Parks approached and confronted Griffith. He began by saying that
the security guards had reported she had conducted a meeting, and Griffith responded that she
could conduct meetings that day and the next day, which, Hatten understood, as her saying she
could conduct a meeting whenever she wanted to do so. Hatten replied that he was giving her

56 According to Parks, “I don’t know if she actually made the call, but she had the phone
out.”
57 Parks estimated that “maybe five minutes” passed from when he called security until the
guards arrived in the cafeteria.
58 Respondent offered Parks’ handwritten report of the incident, which the latter claimed he
prepared “maybe 20 to 30 minutes” after the incident, as corroboration of his testimony.
However, analysis of the report discloses that, after describing the entire sequence of events,
including what Hatten assertedly said to the hospital security guards as they began escorting
Griffith out of the cafeteria, in the last sentence, Parks added the words, “Bruce also said
Beverly is suspended pending investigation and is not allowed on campuses . . . .”
59 Asked if Hatten asked for Griffith’s security badge, Parks said, “Not to my recollection.”
Also, Parks did not recall Griffith saying anything to Hatten during the encounter.
60 Hatten, who described the dining area as being “pretty full,” estimated “about 20” people
sitting in the area in which Griffith’s table was located. He added that most of these individuals
appeared to be employees. Further, most of the non-employees were seated more towards the
front of the room, and the sections were divided by planters.
61 According to Hatten, “I understood that she went [to] a table and talked to these folks.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
21
a direct order to cease and desist conducting meetings, handing out flyers, and soliciting funds
and to leave the cafeteria.62 According to Hatten, upon hearing his order, Griffith became “just
defiant” as “I’m trying to explain to her what she needs to so moving forward,” and she is “. . .
saying `I need silence.’” Then, she said she was going to call her attorney, and she, in fact, did
telephone her lawyer “after I gave her [the] direct order to leave. Asked at what point during
their confrontation he told Griffith she was being suspended, Hatten said, “It was after the
second time I gave her a direct order to leave. . . . I believe that I said, `you are refusing to
comply with a direct order to leave the premises . . .’ and that she’s `suspended pending
investigation for insubordination for refusing a direct order.’”63 Griffith responded, “`for what.’”
Rather than replying, Hatten said he then turned to Parks and asked him to telephone for the
hospital security guards to come to the cafeteria. Hatten estimated that “probably” five or ten
minutes elapsed between Parks’ telephone call for Respondent’s security guards to come to the
cafeteria and their arrival. He testified that, during this interval, “I don’t remember” Griffith
making any effort to leave the cafeteria; she was merely “sitting at the table.”
Annie Block, who is employed by Allied Barton Security and assigned to Respondent’s
Alta Bates Hospital campus as a guard supervisor, testified that, at 9:00 in the morning on
March 23, she was “called” to come to the facility’s cafeteria by Officer Said and that she went
there with two other guards. Upon arriving in the cafeteria, Block observed Hatten, Griffith,
whom she knew by sight, Horne, the guard Said, and another person all standing in “probably
like a half circle . . . . in front of [a] table” but did not observe Griffith holding any materials.
According to Block, “I arrived and I spoke with Bruce Hatten and he told me that Beverly had
violated the orders and that she was to be escorted out.” Then, “Bruce told [Beverly] that she
was suspended from Alta Bates Summit Medical Center” and instructed Block to escort her out
of the facility. She added that, hearing what Hatten said, Griffith64 “. . . just had this kind of look
on her face like . . . . I’m suspended. . . . It was a look like she understood.” Thereupon, with
Horne walking along with them, Block escorted Griffith out of the cafeteria and to the front
entrance to the facility. Finally, Block estimated that five minutes passed from the time she went
to the cafeteria until the time Griffith left the building and that she was inside the cafeteria for
only two or three minutes.
As to his reasons for confronting Griffith that morning, Hatten initially testified that Griffith
had violated Respondent’s cafeteria policy by “basically getting up and taking over part of the
cafeteria to have a meeting. It was disruptive, it was calling attention to herself.” Asked with
whom she was meeting, Hatten said they were “employees of the organization” or “. . . groups
of people at tables that she was going to, talking to loudly.” He added that he considered
Griffith holding a meeting every time she went to a table at which employees were sitting.65

62 Regarding DeAnn Horne, Hatten said, “I believe when I gave the direct order to cease
and desist and leave the premises to Beverly, he observed Horne leaving the cafeteria, and
“she was gone.”
63 While stating that “generally” Respondent’s practice is to collect a suspended employee’s
name badge and keys, Hatten conceded that he failed to ask for Griffith’s security identification.
64 Block denied hearing Griffith say anything to Hatten after he suspended her.
65 Asked what was wrong with what Griffith did that morning when Respondent had no
written policy explicitly forbidding such conduct, Hatten replied “because it makes an
environment for our guests or patients, or visitors that do go . . . to the cafeteria.” He added
that, while not a written work rule, such “. . . is a practice . . . that was communicated to Beverly
on the 20th.” Asked to describe this “practice,” Hatten stated, “That you can’t take over the
cafeteria having meetings that are disruptive basically not being used for what the cafeteria is
intended to be use for.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
22
Hatten stated that Griffith’s actions were disruptive; for “she was carrying on a lot of
conversation to people that were at a table within earshot of many other visitors to the hospital .
. . trying to raise money, we’re trying to do things for this new union. ‘ Denying he was actually
concerned with the content of her message to her co-workers,66 Hatten accused Griffith of “. . .
disturbing the environment for the people that are in [the cafeteria] . . . .” Further, noting that his
concern was that the NUHW was going to engineer some kind of “takeover” of the cafeteria with
much noise and fanfare causing a disruption “of the flow of things,” Hatten asserted that Griffith
had engaged in such conduct that morning. Then, asked to explain how her actions March 23
differed from her conduct three days earlier, Hatten replied that he permitted Griffith to engage
in her union activities then as “what happened on Friday was nice, one, two person
conversations, there wasn’t a lot of attention drawn to them in having their discussions.” He
added that what was worse on March 23 was that “. . . Ms. Griffith then proceeded to stand up
and take over that section of the cafeteria. . . . She started conducting a meeting loud enough in
front of all of the people in the section and loud enough to where people in the next area, who
were visitors to the hospital, could hear.”67 Finally, conceding that no employee or visitor
complained about Griffith’s conduct on March 23 and that he observed none of the foregoing,
Hatten testified that he relied upon what he was told by the security guards, Parks and Said,
and that they described Griffith’s acts and conduct as being “disruptive.”
Pursuant to the posted announcements, the membership meeting in the Alta Bates
Hospital campus cafeteria on March 23 was scheduled to continue until 7:00 p.m. Roxie
Osborne, an LVN for Respondent at that facility, testified that she, along with other SEIU-UHW
bargaining unit employees, had volunteered to help conduct the meeting in shifts and that her
shift was scheduled to be from 10:00am until noon.68 According to Osborne, who had been a
steward for SEIU-UHW but had been “relieved” of her steward responsibilities by the labor
organization,69 she arrived at the cafeteria at approximately 10:00am and observed that there
did not appear to be any union activity occurring. She immediately approached a co-worker,
who said there wouldn’t be a meeting that day and nodded toward “. . . two gentlemen that was
sitting at a table against the wall.” She continued, stating that the two men, whom Osborne
identified as Parks and Said, “. . . had stopped the meeting and had hustled Beverly Griffith out
of the cafeteria.” Thereupon, noticing several bargaining unit employees sitting at another table,
Osborne “. . . walked over to them and started talking with them, and I had brought a flyer [with
me] . . . and I had that also in my hand. And as I started talking with them, Ronnie Parks . . . got
up and . . . walked around the table where the employees were sitting . . . .” Osborne testified
that the employees at the table “started staring at” Parks, and “. . . they got a little restless.”
Moments later, a security guard for Respondent, whom Osborne recognized, entered the
cafeteria, approached the table at which she sat, walked around it, and then walked out of the

66 Specifically asked by me whether it made any difference the record evidence was that, on
the morning of March 23, Griffith had been distributing union literature and speaking about a
union, Hatten replied, “That was not my concern.”
67 Hatten opined that Griffith’s actions on March 23 were akin to making a speech-- “it may
have been only to this group instead of all of the [people in the cafeteria], but she was
[speaking] . . . to this group . . . in a manner that was loud enough for anybody else around to be
able to hear it clearly.”
68 Osborne testified that, in the past, Respondent had permitted SEIU-UHW agents,
stewards for the labor organization, and its employees to conduct SEIU-UHW membership
meetings in the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria, and “we never had a problem” doing so.
Further, she was not aware of any restrictions on the use of the cafeteria for such meetings.
69 The witness testified that SEIU-UHW had similarly relieved all its other stewards and
bargaining committee members of their responsibilities.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
23
dining area. At the end of their break periods, the employees, who were sitting with Osborne,
left the table. The latter remained sitting as she had observed several other bargaining unit
employees enter the cafeteria and sit at another table. Osborne arose from her seat, walked
over to the other table, sat, and began giving these employees “updates,” similar to those which
she had discussed with the employees at the other table, on union issues. Then, Parks, who
had left his table, approached Osborne and said “. . . that I’m not to talk about my union stuff.
I’m not to . . . hand out any . . . union flyers, and I’m not to take any donations.” Osborne asked
Parks to identify himself, and Parks did so loudly enough for all the employees, at the table, to
hear, stating that Respondent had hired him. Osborne emphasized that she and the other
employees “have a right to be here,” and “. . . he reiterated again that I’m not to talk about any
union stuff, not to take any donations, and not to hand out any flyers . . . and I said this is [an]
Alta Bates flyer and I’m sharing this with the co-workers . . . .” Parks walked away, and, spotting
another bargaining unit employee, who had just entered the cafeteria, Osborne walked over to
where she was seated with other employees, sat, and began speaking to the employee. Parks
observed Osborne’s actions, left his table, approached to within a few feet of Osborne, and then
returned to his seat. At this point, Osborne stood and walked out of the cafeteria.
Ronnie Parks testified that, subsequent to Respondent’s guards escorting Griffith out of
the cafeteria, he and Said stayed for the remainder of the day “. . . observing the cafeteria for
any activity that we were asked to watch for . . . .” At approximately noon to 1:00 p.m., Parks
observed a short woman across the cafeteria and noticed her jacket had the UHW logo over the
left breast. Seeing this logo, Parks began paying attention to the woman, who was carrying
some papers in her hands, eventually standing and approaching “close” in order to identify what
documents she was carrying and distributing. According to Parks, the woman remained in the
cafeteria for 20 to 30 minutes, going from table to table, handing out flyers, which, Parks was
able to identify as “union related” documents. He also took photographs of the woman’s
activities. Then, Parks telephoned Hatten, who was in a meeting, and was instructed by the
person to whom he spoke to approach the woman and request that she cease her union
activities. According to Parks, he did so, and the woman ceased distributing her flyers.
Specifically, Parks told her “`you can’t hand out flyers, you can’t solicit funds, and you can’t hold
a meeting . . . in relation to this material.’” Parks further testified her remained at the woman’s
table for five minutes and, after satisfying himself, she was not engaging in any prohibited
conduct, he walked away from the woman.
Finally, with regard to this later March 23 incident, Bruce Hatten testified that he
understood from what Parks reported to him that Osborne had been speaking loudly and
disrupting other people in the cafeteria. He added that Osborne’s conduct caused a “disruption”
as “she did the same thing that Ms. Griffith did.” However, he decided against any discipline; for
“. . . when she was told to stop, she stopped.”
5. Beverly Griffith’s Suspension and Ejection from the Summit Hospital Campus on
March 24 by Respondent
On Tuesday, March 24 dressed in her usual work clothes, Beverly Griffith arrived at the
Summit Hospital campus at 6:55am in order to start working her normal 7:00am to 3:30pm shift.
The record establishes that, each morning, many of the EVS department employees arrive
several minutes prior to the start of the work shift and gather in the EVS lounge/break room,
which is located on the first floor of Respondent’s facility across from the EVS department
manager’s office, talking and eating breakfast, and that, also, Tito Aquino normally holds a pre-
shift meeting with them in order to discuss any departmental problems or issues. According to
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
24
Griffith, her plan that morning was to arrive several minutes early in order to distribute a flyer70
and alert her co-workers as to what occurred the previous morning at the Alta Bates Hospital
campus cafeteria. In this regard, Griffith walked into the break room,71 and “. . . set my flyers
down and my coat, and my purse, and I had a cup of coffee, and I started . . . telling everybody
what had happened. . . . at [Alta Bates] and . . . . before I could finish what I was saying . . . Tito
walked by and . . .” asked if she would step outside to speak to him. After initially refusing,
Griffith agreed to follow him but asked Lawana Williams to accompany her. They walked out of
the break room, and Aquino motioned her towards the elevators at the end of the hallway.
Approximately 10 to15 feet from the break room door, the supervisor stopped, turned to Griffith,
and “. . . he said that he had got a call this morning from Bruce Hatten saying that I was
suspended. And I was totally shocked. . . .” She managed to ask why, and Aquino replied that
he did not know why. Griffith responded that she had a right to know the reason and asked
Aquino if her suspension had been placed into written form. He said, no, “. . . and he told me
I had to leave the campus. . . .” Thereupon, Griffith returned to the break room and announced
that she had just been suspended but did not know the reason. Aquino, who had walked into
the room behind her, demanded that she leave immediately. Asserting she had become upset
at the reality of being suspended, while she “gathered” and repacked her materials, Griffith
admittedly exclaimed “`. . . this is bullshit’ or something.” Then, having finished picking up all
the items she brought with her into the break room, Griffith, with Williams accompanying her, left
the room. When the reached the elevators, they were met by a security guard, who
accompanied the two women to the front entrance. Griffith stepped outside and, using her cell
phone, telephoned for her husband to come and drive her home. Asked whether, besides the
word “bullshit,” she uttered any other profanity that morning, Griffith said, no.”72
Lawana Williams corroborated Griffith’s account of what occurred that morning. Thus,
Williams testified that she was inside the break room, drinking coffee, when Griffith arrived; that
the alleged discriminatee immediately turned to the other employees and said “. . . `listen up
everybody. I just want to let you guys know what happened yesterday at the [Alta Bates]

70 The headline on this flyer was “Sutter ABSMC is Un-American,” and the paragraph
beneath the above heading read “On Monday March 23, 2009 ABSMC tried to cancel a union
membership meeting in the cafeteria. HR representative Bruce Hatten threatened Shop
Stewards and bargaining team members Beverly Griffith, DeAnn Horne, and Kenny Hill with
suspension and possible termination for having a informal meeting in the cafeteria. The
purpose of the meeting was simply to update the membership and answer questions about what
is happening to our Union.”
71 When Griffith entered, there were already between 20 and 25 employees in the break
room.
72 She denied saying “Can you believe that I’ve been fucking suspended. I can’t even speak
to you in a fucking public place.” Further, she denied using profanity towards another person
that morning, specifically denying telling Aquino she could be wherever the fuck she wanted and
he couldn’t tell her what the fuck to do. On this point, she said, “I don’t have a reason to use
profanity against Tito when Tito was only being told to tell me that I was suspended and
I needed to leave.”
Griffith averred that she hears employees use profanity in the break room “all the time” and
that no one has ever been disciplined for using such language there.
During cross-examination, Griffith conceded there is nothing in her pretrial affidavit about
her saying this is “bullshit” after hearing of her suspension but maintained “I said it” inside the
lounge. Further, Griffith conceded that, during her March 26 Weingarten interview prior to her
discharge, she admitted she might have said “f” something. However, she added that “after
thinking about what [Hatten] said . . . I said, no, I did not say that.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
25
campus.’” She went on to describe the events of the previous day, and “at that point, Tito came
to the door and asked if he could speak with her. She said he could speak in front of everybody
and he said, no, I need to speak with you in private. And so she asked do I need to bring
Lawana? He said . . . okay. So we . . . went out in the hall, we followed Tito down about 30 feet
. . . to the elevators. And he informed Beverly that he had gotten a call from HR . . . from Bruce
Hatten . . . to say that she was suspended for the day.” Griffith exclaimed “`suspended’” and
asked for what. Aquino only said “. . . that she was suspended and she needed to leave the
campus.” Griffith said “okay” and asked if she could retrieve her belongings. Aquino said, yes,
and she turned and walked back toward the EVS break room. Williams continued, saying that
she and Aquino followed behind Griffith by “maybe” a couple of seconds. “I went into the
lounge. Tito kept walking. [Inside], Beverly [was telling everyone] she had been suspended.
Everybody was upset, asking why. And she just [said] `because this is what Lawana and I have
told you guys . . . was going to happen.’ And she . . . said `because it’s a bunch of bullshit.’”73
Aquino then came to the door and said he needed her to leave. Williams volunteered to carry
some of Griffith’s things and accompanied her out of the room and to the front entrance.74
Aquino followed them as far as the elevators and then turned and walked back toward his office.
Williams estimated that no more than “probably two minutes, two and a half minutes at the
most, elapsed between the time Griffith walked back toward the break room and when, having
gathered all her materials, she walked out of the break room.
Tito Aquino testified that, during the afternoon on March 23, he received a telephone call
from Brett Rogers, Respondent’s EVS director, who informed him that Griffith was being place
on suspension and would not be allowed on the premises. The next morning, according to
Aquino, he was in his office when he became aware that Griffith was in the building. He
immediately telephoned for security, saying a suspended employee was inside the facility and
she should be escorted out. He then went across the hall to the EVS lounge “. . . and when
I got to the door, I saw Ms. Griffith standing in the middle of the lounge table; she was in uniform
and . . . holding some blue flyers.” He called to Griffith that he wanted to speak to her. After
she hesitated, Aquino said he needed to speak to her outside. This time, Griffith assented but
asked Lawana Williams to accompany her. They walked toward the service elevators and
Aquino told Griffith that he had been informed by HR that she had been suspended and she had
to immediately leave the hospital building. Griffith responded, “`Says who,’”75 and Aquino
repeated that she had been suspended and had to leave immediately. Thereupon, Griffith
walked back into the lounge, and, according to Aquino, “. . . I just walked behind [Griffith and
Williams] and stood “by the doorway” of the lounge.” From that position, he heard Griffith, who
he characterized as being “loud” and “upset,” say to the EVS employees “. . .`Did you all hear

73 Williams specifically denied hearing Griffith utter any other profanity, including the “f”
word. Further, she denied that Aquino was in the lounge listening to what Griffith said.
74 Bertha Dorrough, an EVS department employee, testified that she also was in the EVS
department lounge early in the morning of March 24. She observed Griffith enter and join into a
discussion “about scarves.” Then, Aquino entered the room and asked Griffith to step outside,
and Lawana Williams accompanied her. Griffith “. . . came back in a few minutes later and told
us that she was being suspended. Employees began asking why, and Griffith responded “. . .
`Oh, it’s for a bunch of bull,’ and she was grabbing her purse [and other personal items] . . . and
she jus t started walking and Lawana . . . followed her out the door.” Dorrough did not see
Aquino until he came back to the lounge later. Asked if she heard Griffith utter any profanity
that morning, Dorrough replied, “no . . . I didn’t hear her say any profanity,” including the
“f” word.
75 Aquino conceded that “when I first told her about [her suspension] . . . she appeared . . .
this is the first time that she knew about it.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
26
that. I’m being fucking suspended. I can’t even speak to you in a fucking public place.’”76 At
this point, according to Aquino, he asked Griffith to leave immediately and accompanied her to
the elevators where a security guard had just arrived. He instructed the guard to escort Griffith
out of the building and watched as the guard, Griffith, and Lawana Williams walked towards the
front entrance to the building.77
Carla Biddle, who worked as an EVS supervisor for Respondent from March 3 until she
voluntarily quit on July 10, testified that she supervised 32 day shift employees including the
alleged discriminatee78 and that Aquino informed her on March 23 Griffith had been suspended.
Biddle testified that she arrived for work on March 24 at 5:40am and “began rounding my areas
in the hospital.” She finished at approximately 7:00, and “I was heading to the Environmental
Services corridor . . . . to the EVS break room, the lounge. . . . The moment I stepped off the
elevator, Tito Aquino was coming towards me and I went to ask him a question regarding
rounding, and he said, `not now, we have a situation. . . .’ He turned around to head back to the
EVS lounge and I followed him. . . . [He] walked into the EVS lounge and I stopped at the
doorway to the left-hand side. . . . it was a very heated situation that I walked into. . . .
Ms. Griffith was standing in the room, to the right side of the table, handing out . . . a blue flyer
[to the employees who were seated around the table] . . . and she was speaking loudly.
Mr. Aquino raised his hand and told her, `you don’t belong here, you need to leave, I’ve called

76 Moments later, during his testimony, Aquino changed his testimony, quoting Griffith as
saying to the other employees in the lounge, “. . . `can you all . . . believe that I’ve been
suspended.’” Subsequently, under questioning by me, asked to repeat what he heard, Aquino
embellished his original account, testifying “she did say profanity words . . . . when she walked
back into the lounge . . . `Did you all hear that. I was being fucking suspended and I’m not even
allowed to be fucking . . . talking in a fucking public place.’”
77 Aquino testified that Griffith directed no profanity towards him. Further, he could not recall
Griffith saying to him “I can be wherever the fuck I want to be” or “You can’t tell me what the
fuck to do or where to go.” Aquino stated that he has heard employees use profanity during
private conversations but maintained he would have requested that Griffith be given a warning
notice for her profanity that morning.
Aquino testified that, after Griffith departed, he informed Brett Rogers of what had occurred;
that the latter asked him to draft a written statement regarding the incident; and that he did draft
such a statement “somewhere around 9:00, 9:30” and gave it to Rogers. Aquino further testified
that Bruce Hatten requested that he revise his report. Asked why he did this, Aquino testified, “I
revised it because . . . I did not see any union flyers that were inside the employee lounge on
the table. . . . And that’s what I added . . . . and that . . . she was holding a blue paper which is a
flyer form the union.” Respondent offered as its fifth exhibit Aquino’s revised written statement;
however, it neither offered the original draft as an exhibit nor offered an explanation for its failure
to do so. Further, Hatten failed to corroborate Aquino as to the reason for revising his
statement.
78 During cross-examination, Biddle, who was virtually inaudible for much of her testimony,
stated that she was assigned to supervise EVS employees who were working on the “. . .
ground, first, second, and third floor” of the Summit Hospital campus.” She added that Griffith
was assigned to the fourth floor and that, while Aquino was the supervisor of the fourth floor
EVS employees, she did supervise Griffith on Monday, which was Aquino’s “scheduled day off”
and on his vacation days and personal leave days. Of course, given that Biddle had only been
working for two weeks at the time of Griffith’s suspension, her supervisory time over Griffith
would have been negligible-- at most, two days. Finally, during cross-examination, Biddle
stated she was responsible for supervising “. . . ballpark, 13 to 15 employees. Asked if she
supervised “32” employees only when Aquino was away, Biddle replied, “correct.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
27
security.’ At which point, Ms. Griffith raised her voice to talk over him, and Mr. Aquino again
repeated it and turned around and exited the room.”79 Asked what she heard Griffith80 say,
Biddle stated, “Ms. Griffith was . . . speaking what her rights were, that she had a right to be
there, she shouldn’t have been suspended, numerous words of profanity involved in this. . . .
The “f” word was repeatedly used during her angry outburst.”81 During cross-examination,
Biddle was more specific, stating that Griffith82 angrily said “. . . she had been wrongfully
[suspended], she had ‘[fucking] rights.’” Then, after Aquino said she had to leave and he had
called security, Griffith spoke over him, saying “. . . she had rights, she could be `any [fucking]
place’ she wanted to be, he couldn’t tell her what to do.”83 At this, Aquino left the break room,
walking past her. Biddle then immediately turned and crossed the hall into the EVS supervisor’s
office84 and unsuccessfully tried to contact Brett Rogers by telephone. Moments later, Susan
Kallister, Biddle’s supervisor, entered the office, and Biddle explained the “explosive” situation,
involving Griffith, to her, and Kallister “. . . asked me to come with her to see Bruce Hatten
because I was very upset.”
However, notwithstanding the “explosive” situation apparently continuing in the break
room and Kallister’s instructions to her, feeling the urge to “regroup at that moment,” Biddle
decided to take a smoking break. Thereupon, she left the EVS office and eventually exited the
hospital through the front entrance, walked to the left side of the building past a brick wall, and
stepped off the curb. While doing so, according to Biddle, she noticed that Beverly Griffith “. . .
was on the other side of the entrance partitions pacing back and forth, speaking loudly on her
cell phone” and using the “f” word during her conversation. No patients or visitors were in the
vicinity of Griffith. Biddle stayed outside smoking for five or six minutes, and, when finished, she
again passed by Griffith, who was speaking to a woman and giving her a blue flyer,85 as Biddle
entered the hospital building. The latter testified that she eventually returned to the EVS office
and encountered Bruce Hatten who requested that she “document” what she had earlier
witnessed and send it to him.

79 In her subsequent statement, which she gave to Respondent, Biddle wrote that she first
encountered Aquino at the elevators. Asked was he already at the elevators or walking towards
them when she first encountered Aquino, Biddle said “. . . I encountered him at the
elevators. . . . The doors opened, at the time I step out, he’s right there . . . .”
80 Asked to describe Griffith’s demeanor, Biddle characterized her as “angry, agitated, highly
upset.”
81 Biddle stated that the situation between Aquino and Griffith lasted “I would say between
three to four minutes.”
82 Asked if she thinks Griffith would have reported for work on March 24 knowing she had
been suspended the day before, Biddle said, “I was surprised she did.”
83 According to Biddle, Griffith was not looking at Aquino; rather, she was “speaking to the
wall while “angrily” throwing flyers down on the table.
In a statement (R. Exh. No. 7) which Biddle claimed she drafted after the incident at the
behest of Bruce Hatten, she more explicitly described what she heard Griffith say to Aquino,
“. . . `I can be wherever the [fuck] I want, you can’t tell me what the [fuck] to do, where to go, it’s
my right to be wherever the [fuck] I want to be and you have no right to [fucking] suspend me for
exercising my [fucking] rights.’” Biddle adopted this latter version as what she actually heard.
84 According to Biddle, Griffith remained standing by the right side of the table and
continuing to talk in a loud voice. She denied that Griffith appeared to be making any effort to
leave the lounge.
85 Biddle asserted that the blue flyer, which Griffith distributed that morning, “. . . stated she
had been suspended. . . . She was stating she had been unfairly suspended.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
28
As to whether she saw Carla Biddle that morning, Beverly Griffith testified, “I don’t
remember seeing Carla until I was walking out of the building and she was coming towards
me. . . .” Later, according to Griffith, as she was standing outside the glass entrance doors and
telephoning for her husband to come and pick her up, she again noticed Biddle outside in the
designated smoking area approximately 65 to 70 feet from her. Likewise, Lawana Williams
testified that, while she and Griffith walked towards the front entrance, they passed by Carla
Biddle and the hospital “dispatcher,” both of whom were coming from the opposite direction, at
the hospital gift shop. Williams stated that she believed both had been outside smoking as
“they smelled like smoke.” Asked whether he saw Biddle at any point during the incident, Tito
Aquino contradicted her, stating “I was at the doorway when I saw her that time. . . . shortly after
. . . I followed Lawana and Beverly . . . back to the EVS lounge area . . . . She came from the
elevator side of the hallway. . . . She was walking towards the office and the EVS lounge . . .”
and went past where he was standing. Aquino failed to corroborate Biddle regarding her
stopping in order to observe what was occurring inside the break room and, as set forth above,
regarding most of the comments attributed to Griffith by Biddle.
6. Respondent’s April 6 Discharge of Beverly Griffith
Two days after her suspension, on March 26, Respondent requested that Griffith report
to its HR department for a Weingarten interview. Bruce Hatten conducted the meeting for
Respondent, and Griffith asked Deborah Kirtman to represent her. The alleged discriminatee
testified that, prior to this meeting, she had no information or knowledge as to the allegations
against her and that, during the above meeting, she learned for the first time that Respondent
contended that Hatten had suspended her prior to her leaving the Alta Bates Hospital campus
cafeteria on March 23. Hatten told her this and then asked, knowing she had been suspended
and ordered not to return to Respondent’s campuses, nevertheless, she reported to work the
next day with the intent of being paid? “And I said, yes, I was in my uniform and yes, I came to
work to get paid because I wasn’t aware that I was suspended until that morning.” Also, Hatten
asked her if she remembered his admonition, on March 20, that she could not conduct a
meeting, and she said she did. He asked if she stood up and spoke to a group on March 23,
and Griffith replied that she could not recall doing so. Further, Hatten asked Griffith whether she
had ever used the word “fucking,” and the latter replied that she was not sure but might have
said it.86 “And then he said, didn’t you use the word . . . to Tito . . . and when he said that,
I says, no, I did not say that to Tito.” Then, at the hearing, Griffith sought to revise her initial
response to Hatten, adamantly denying her use of the word “fucking” on March 24-- “. . . no,
I did not say that.”
Either later on March 26 or the next day, Hatten met with Brett Rogers in order to
determine discipline for Griffith, and, according to Hatten, the “outcome” of their meeting was
the decision to terminate Griffith’s employment with Respondent. During their discussions,
while not discussing Respondent’s unwritten “no meetings policy,” Hatten and Rogers did delve
through all the evidence regarding Griffith’s asserted violations of Respondent’s work rules,
direct orders, and policies, including its solicitation/distribution rules and Griffith’s violations of
said policies and all the disciplinary actions involving Griffith during the preceding 12 months.
On Griffith’s alleged use of profanity, noting the discrepancies, they nevertheless decided to

86 According to Griffith, she wanted to be “truthful” in her answers to Hatten.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
29
accept the accounts of Aquino and Biddle as both supervisors were “sincere” about what they
described and neither “gained” anything from volunteering information.87 However, Hatten
agreed that the primary reason, which he and Rogers discussed, for discharging Griffith, was
that she violated Hatten’s direct orders to cease and desist her meeting and to leave
Respondent’s Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria on March 23. Asked to describe Griffith’s
insubordination that day, Hatten stated, “Basically getting up and taking over part of the
cafeteria to have a meeting. It was disruptive, it was calling attention to herself.” Finally, asked,
if prior to deciding to terminate Griffith, he was aware of or had concerns Griffith had been
involved in soliciting signatures for the decertification petition, Hatten replied, “I don’t think so.”
In this regard, General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 24, a March 27 e-mail from Richard Hinshaw to
various individuals, including Hatten, reads as follows: “Bruce is pursuing some recently
received information that Beverly was observed at least on one occasion taking EVS Staff sign
in sheets . . . and copying the staff signatures. We suspect they may have been used by
NUHW to demonstrate a 30% showing of interest for the decertification petition. We think part
of Beverly’s activities doing NUHW business has been collecting signatures for the petition. . . .”
Notwithstanding having reached the decision nine days earlier, Respondent waited until
April 6 to terminate Griffith. According to Hatten, the delay was caused by having to “. . . [go] up
my line and reviewing a termination with my boss.” Also, he spent “a few days” prior to
discharging the alleged discriminatee researching whether Respondent previously had
discharged employees based upon similar acts and conduct. In this regard, Respondent offered
evidence of five allegedly similar prior terminations-- the first, dated September 4, 2008,
concerns an employee who falsified time records, engaged in intimidating behavior toward co-
workers, created a hostile work environment, and engaged in insubordinate behavior; the
second, dated June 4, 2007, concerns an employee who was terminated for sleeping on the job,
being dishonest about said misconduct, and deliberately violating a direct order to leave the
hospital; the next, dated December 15, 2006, involves an employee who opened a sealed
envelope addressed to a co-worker, replied “who gives a fuck” when questioned by a
supervisor, and violated a direct order not to speak to co-workers while under suspension; the
fourth, dated November 20, 2006, concerns an employee who had been untruthful about
returning to work after an excused absence and about his absence from work on another
occasion; and the final discharge, dated April 19, 2007, involves an employee who destroyed
medical records, improperly used Respondent’s e-mail system, and failed to follow a direct
order regarding retaliation.88
On April 6, Respondent telephoned Griffith and told her to report for a meeting that day.
She was unable to do so that day; however, on April 7, she met with Hatten in his human
resources department office. “He said that he was terminating me, and he read the whole
termination papers to me, and I signed it. I said I’m being . . . terminated for union activity.”
After noting that, on March 23, she had been observed in the Alta Bates Hospital campus

87 Hatten failed to interview any employee, who was inside the EVS lounge early in the
morning of April 24.
88 Counsel for the General Counsel offered examples of Respondent’s discipline of
employees, who engaged similar misconduct as allegedly engaged in by Griffith but who were
not discharged. In this regard, in May 2008, an employee received a final warning notice and
was suspended for 12 days for disobeying multiple instructions from a supervisor, becoming
loud and abusive in a work area, and refusing to leave when instructed and, in July 2005, an
employee received a final warning notice and was suspended for five days for using foul and
abusive language in a meeting with a supervisor in front of other employees and refusing to
leave despite multiple instructions.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
30
cafeteria conducting an advertised meeting for an “outside organization” in violation of
Respondent’s policy, including displaying literature on a table, changing tables “several times,”
and distributing flyers, that she left only after security escorted her out of the cafeteria, and that
she had been suspended for her actions, the termination notice, which Hatten gave to Griffith,
states, “You are being terminated for unacceptable behavior. You failed to obey a direct order
from a management representative. You attempted to return to work and receive pay while
under an investigatory suspension, and you used foul language on medical center property. . . .
The conduct described above violated multiple disciplinary rules, specifically including our rules
against disruptive conduct, harassment, insubordination, and the use of foul language on
hospital property.”
C. Legal Analysis
As set forth above, the General Counsel alleges that Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by engaging in surveillance of its employees’ union activities in its Summit
Hospital campus cafeteria on March 20 and in its Alta Bates Hospital cafeteria on March 23;
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by discriminatorily enforcing its existing solicitation/distribution
policies at its Summit Hospital campus cafeteria on March 20 and at its Alta Bates Hospital
campus cafeteria on March 23; and Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by issuing a disciplinary
warning to Griffith on February 23, by suspending Griffith on March 24, and by discharging her
on April 6. Clearly, credibility resolutions are essential for determining what occurred during the
above-described February 17, March 20, March 23, and March 24 incidents and for determining
the merits of the unfair labor practice allegations. At the outset, in these regards, while I was
troubled by Beverly Griffith’s timorous testimony explaining her admittedly equivocal response to
Hatten, during her March 27 Weingarten interview, as to her use of profanity, I, nevertheless,
viewed her demeanor, while testifying, as that of a veracious witness, one who clearly paid
attention to and understood my admonition to tell the truth, and I shall credit and rely upon her
version of events. Likewise, each of the current bargaining unit employees who testified
(DeAnn Horne, Lawana Williams, Bertha Dorrough, and Roxie Osborne) impressed me as
adhering to my admonition and attempting to convey her recollection of events as accurately as
possible, and, in this regard, I note that, at a time when job security is a paramount concern,
each testified adversely to Respondent’s interests with a management representative, Bruce
Hatten, observing her testimony. As with the alleged discriminatee, I shall rely upon the
respective corroborative testimony of Horne, Williams, Dorrough, and Osborne. SEIU
representative Carlos Hernandez’ testimonial account of the February 17 water spilling incident
did not differ greatly from that of Griffith; however, inasmuch as Hernandez, an otherwise
seemingly candid witness, gave a contradictory version to Respondent’s security guard
immediately after the event and as Respondent failed to call Erica McDuffy as a corroborative
witness nor offered any explanation for failing to do so, I shall credit Griffith whenever she and
Hernandez conflict. Three other witnesses (Tito Aquino, Ronnie Parks, and Annie Block), for the
most part, appeared to be testifying honestly; however, any credence, which I might give to
these individuals must be palliated by Aquino’s three divergent accounts of Griffith’s asserted
profanity on March 24, Parks, Block and Bruce Hatten contradicting each other as to the timing
of the latter’s asserted suspension of Griffith on March 23, and Parks’ and Block’s contradictory
testimony as to DeAnn Horne’s continued presence in the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
31
on March 23 after Hatten confronted Griffith and her. In these circumstances, whenever these
latter three individuals’ accounts of events conflict with those of Horne, Williams, and especially
Griffith,89 I shall rely upon the latter three witnesses.
In stark contrast, noting the demeanor of each while testifying and the content of the
testimony of each individual, which, in significant ways, was contradicted by other, more
credible witnesses and by the documentary evidence, two witnesses, Bruce Hatten and Carla
Biddle, impressed me as being particularly disingenuous, deceitful, and not worthy of belief as
to any aspect of his or her testimony. Bluntly put, Hatten, who was the instigator behind each of
the alleged unfair labor practices, was a duplicitous witness, one whose primary intent, I believe,
was to buttress Respondent’s defense rather than to testify truthfully, and was contradicted on
crucial points by Tito Aquino (whether Hatten spoke to Griffith at the end of the latter’s work shift
on February 20), Annie Block, and Ronnie Parks (whether DeAnn Horne left immediately after
Hatten ordered Griffith and her to cease and desist from engaging in their union activities and to
leave the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria on March 23 and whether Griffith acted in a
“defiant” manner in response to said orders) and by Respondent’s own e-mail messages
(contrary to Hatten, as early as February 20, Respondent harbored suspicions that Griffith was
distributing Union organizing campaign literature at its facilities and, while denying he was
aware of the alleged discriminatee’s activities in support of a decertification petition, as of
March 27, the day he was involved in the decision to discharge Griffith, Hatten was in the midst
of “pursing” the extent of Griffith’s involvement in obtaining signatures for the petition).
Likewise, noting that the aforementioned Aquino either failed to corroborate or flatly contradicted
her on almost every meaningful aspect of her testimony, I think Biddle, who testified inaudibly as
if she desired not to be heard and appeared unable to articulate, with any specificity, the
profanity which she attributed to Griffith,90 dissembled as to her version of the events of the
early morning on March 24. In particular, Aquino contradicted Biddle concerning their initial
encounter, as to where each stood while assertedly observing and overhearing Griffith inside
the EVS break room,91 and, of course, most importantly, regarding whether, after venting angrily
to her co-workers inside the lounge, Griffith turned to Aquino and assertedly attacked him with a
scabrous outburst of profanity. Also, rather incredibly, Biddle was internally inconsistent
regarding seemingly innocuous, irrelevant points including the number of employees whom she
supervised and her asserted supervision of Griffith.92
In light of my aforementioned credibility resolutions, I find that Respondent and SEIU-
UHW have been engaged in on-going negotiations for a successor collective bargaining

89 Respondent offered several documents, assertedly corroborative of the testimony of its
agents’ respective testimony. I harbor doubts regarding these documents. Thus, while Ronnie
Parks’ written report of the March 23 incident does portray Hatten as informing Griffith she was
suspended, I note that, notwithstanding its import, Parks’ failed to mention Hatten’s act in his
description of the incident. Rather, the sentence containing Hatten’s suspension of Griffith is
the last sentence and is introduced by “Bruce also . . . .” Moreover, while Respondent offered
as corroboration of Aquino, his second draft of his written statement, it failed to offer the original
statement and failed to explain its absence.
90 Eventually, she adopted what she claimed to have written in her statement of events for
Respondent.
91 Crediting both, they would have been standing in each other’s shoes while stationed in
the doorway of the lounge.
92 Of course, I give no credence as corroboration to Biddle’s written statement of the events
of March 24. Without delving into conjecture as to its origin, I view nothing in the document as
truthful.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
32
agreement since, at least, July 2008; that, on January 26, 2009, the SEIU placed SEIU-UHW
into trusteeship; that, shortly thereafter, ousted SEIU-UHW officers and executive board
members formed the NUHW and immediately commenced an organizing campaign in California
amongst hospital employees who were then represented by SEIU-UHW, including
Respondent’s bargaining unit employees; that, by January 29, several of Respondent’s
bargaining unit employees, including Beverly Griffith and other stewards, began circulating a
petition to decertify SEIU-UHW as their bargaining representative and organizing on behalf of
the NUHW; that, after approximately 70 percent of said employees executed the petition, Griffith
led a delegation of employees to Respondent’s chief operating officer’s office and presented the
petition and a demand for recognition of the NUHW to the latter’s secretary; and that, as early
as late January, Respondent became aware of the decertification campaign. Next, I find that,
on February 17, SEIU-UHW representatives, Hernandez and McDuffy, encountered Griffith at a
table in the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria; that they began arguing about the pending
election petition before the Board and the state of the negotiations for a new collective-
bargaining agreement between SEIU-UHW and Respondent; that, having no desire to continue
their heated conversation, Griffith arose and inadvertently knocked over a small cup of water,
with the contents spilling over the table top and down to the floor; that no water spilled on
Hernandez; and that McDuffy accused Griffith of spilling the water deliberately and threatened
to report the matter to the police. Then, the two SEIU-UHW representatives left the dining area
and exited the cafeteria; shortly thereafter, Griffith observed them speaking to a security guard
for Respondent and accusing Griffith of deliberately knocking over the cup of water on them;
Griffith approached and said it had been an unfortunate accident; the guard said he would have
to file a report of the incident and did so; and, in his report, the guard quoted Hernandez as
accusing Griffith of knocking over the cup of water, with the contents spilling on him. I further
find that, three days later, Bruce Hatten received an e-mail from Richard Hinshaw; that, in said
e-mail, Hinshaw intimated that Griffith was responsible for leaving some NUHW organizing
campaign literature at the Summit Hospital campus facility; that, later, Hatten received a
telephone call from McDuffy; that during the course of their conversation, McDuffy accused
Griffith of having been “rude” to Hernandez and her and of having deliberately spilled water on
Hernandez; that Hatten then requested and received the security guard’s incident report; that,
failing to interview Hernandez, Hatten assertedly believed McDuffy and perceived the incident
as an employee deliberately spilling a cup of water on a guest; that, later in the day, along with
Tito Aquino, Hatten went looking for Griffith but was unable to locate her on her work floor; and
that, notwithstanding his professed desire to speak to the alleged discriminatee and ascertain
her version of events, at approximately 3:25pm, near the EVS office, Griffith walked past Hatten
and Aquino on her way to clock out for the day and, in abject disregard of his usual practice of
obtaining each party’s version of a disputed incident, Hatten made no effort to speak to her.
Finally, I find that, on February 23, Hatten met with Griffith for a Weingarten interview; that,
during the course of their meeting, he gave Griffith a written warning notice, accusing her of “. . .
intentionally knock[ing] over a glass of water that spilled onto a guest. . . . This behavior is
unacceptable and will not be tolerated;” that Griffith became upset and accused Hatten of
disciplining her without obtaining her version of the incident; that Hatten responded “`it sounds
like [you];’” and that Hatten never protested he had, in fact, spoken to Griffith three days earlier.
Alleging that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by giving Griffith the
foregoing disciplinary warning notice, counsel for the General Counsel posits two different
theories underlying the alleged unfair labor practice. First, she argues that the Supreme Court’s
rationale in its Burnup & Sims, Inc., 379 U.S. 21 (1964), decision applies inasmuch as Griffith
was disciplined “. . . for allegedly engaging in misconduct in the course of protected activity” and
as, in such a setting, Respondent’s good-faith belief that Griffith had engaged in the alleged
misconduct would not constitute a defense if, in fact, she had not committed the alleged
misconduct. White Electrical Construction Co., 345 NLRB 1095, 1096 (2005). Utilizing the
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
33
Burnup & Sims analysis, in order to establish a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act, the
General Counsel must have first established that discipline occurred; the burden then shifted to
Respondent to establish that it possessed a good-faith belief that Griffith engaged in
misconduct; and then the burden shifted back to the General Counsel to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence that she, in fact, did not engage in the alleged misconduct or
that her entire course of conduct constituted protected activity. Marshall Engineered
Products Co., 351 NLRB 474, 475 (2007). Counsel next argues that Respondent’s acts were
likewise unlawful utilizing the Wright Line analytical framework. In this regard, under Wright
Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982), approved in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S. 393 (1983), the
General Counsel had the initial burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
protected activity was a “motivating factor” in Respondent’s decision to discipline the alleged
discriminatee. Thus, the General Counsel had the burden of showing that Griffith engaged in
union or other protected concerted activities; that Respondent possessed knowledge of Griffith’s
actions; and that Respondent demonstrated unlawful animus against her. Upon such a
showing, the burden of persuasion shifted to Respondent to demonstrate that it would have
disciplined Griffith notwithstanding her protected activities. Detroit Newspapers, 342 NLRB
1268, 1269-70 (2004); Senior Citizens Coordinating Council, 330 NLRB 1100, 1105 (2000).
Pursuant to the Wright Line analysis,93 the record establishes that, notwithstanding her
status as a steward, Griffith was a dissident member of SEIU-UHW and an ardent supporter of
the NUHW’s organizing campaign. Thus, following the January trusteeship, she assisted the
bargaining unit employees’ decertification effort against the SEIU-UHW by soliciting employees
to execute the decertification petition, and she not only became a founding member of the
NUHW but also solicited funds and support from their co-workers for said labor organization.
Moreover, not only was Respondent aware of that its bargaining unit employees were circulating
a decertification petition against the SEIU-UHW but also it is clear that Respondent probably
was aware of Griffith’s dissident activities and, at least, suspected her involvement with the
NUHW. Thus, Bruce Hatten admitted that he became aware of the decertification campaign as
early as January 27, and Griffith was amongst the group of employees, who carried the
decertification petition and the NUHW’s demand for recognition to the office of Respondent’s
chief operating officer. Moreover, as early as February 20, the day Hatten launched his putative
investigation of the water-spilling incident, Richard Hinshaw sent an e-mail to several
management representatives, including Hatten, advising them that Respondent had discovered
copies of the NUHW’s organizing campaign literature at its facilities and suggested Griffith’s
participation, noting sightings of her “around” Respondent’s facilities in the evening after the
conclusion of her work shift. The Board has long held that suspicion of an employee’s
involvement in protected activities is tantamount to direct knowledge of such. Heritage Hall,
E.P.I. Corp., 333 NLRB 458, 461 at n. 24 (2001). Next, I believe that, having become aware of
its bargaining unit employees’ antipathy towards the SEIU-UHW by virtue of their decertification
petition and of the NUHW’s nascent organizing efforts amongst said employees, Respondent
favored the SEIU-UHW and embarked upon a campaign designed to quell its employees’
suspected growing support for the NUHW. As to this, I note that, having become aware of the
March 20 and March 23 membership meetings, Respondent informed the two guards, whom it
hired from Allied Barton Security for the purpose of engaging in surveillance of its employees’
activities, that its employees were attempting to form a new union and directed them to be

93 I do not believe that this issue may properly be analyzed using the Burnup & Sims
approach as the discipline was not based upon the discussion between Griffith and Hernandez
and McDuffy, which may have been protected activity but, rather, upon an act, which occurred
outside the conversation-- the spilling of water.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
34
vigilant for any employees meeting on this subject, soliciting funds on behalf of the new union,
or distributing flyers and to immediately report such “violations.” That Respondent’s preference
for the SEIU-UHW and aversion for the NUHW innervated Hatten’s decision, on behalf of
Respondent, to discipline Griffith is evident. Thus, having been informed earlier on February 20
that Griffith may have been involved in distributing NUHW literature at Respondent’s facilities at
night and egregiously ignoring his own normal practice of obtaining an employee’s version of
events prior to imposing discipline, Hatten issued the written warning to Griffith without first
interviewing her, asserting as justification that it “sounds like” something she would do.
Moreover, in deciding to discipline the alleged discriminatee, Hatten claimed he believed
McDuffy but failed to press her for the details of Griffith’s “deliberate” act and failed to interview
Hernandez, who, of course, was the asserted victim of Griffith’s rude behavior. The Board has
previously concluded that the failure to conduct a “meaningful” investigation and to give the
employee, who is the subject of the investigation, an opportunity to explain are clear indicia of
discriminatory intent. New Orleans Cold Storage Co., 326 NLRB 1471, 1477 (1998); K&M
Electronics, 283 NLRB 279, 291 (1987). In these circumstances, I find that the General
Counsel has established that Respondent was unlawfully motivated in disciplining Griffith on
February 23.
The burden of persuasion then shifted to Respondent to establish that it would have
disciplined Griffith notwithstanding the existence of unlawful motivation. In this regard, in his
post-hearing brief, counsel for Respondent contends that Griffith engaged in “unacceptable” or
“disruptive” behavior during the incident in the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria on February
17; that Respondent has a consistent history of disciplining employees for similar misbehavior;
and that, even if he did not speak to Griffith on February 20, Hatten spent time searching for her
but was unable to locate her. Initially, with regard to said defenses, Bruce Hatten’s account of
his telephone conversation with McDuffy was absolute hearsay, and, as Respondent failed
either to call her as a witness or to explain her absence, I believe she would not have
corroborated Hatten. Further, while, by all accounts, a water spillage occurred on February 17,
I believe Griffith inadvertently knocked over the cup, filled with water, and none of the liquid
spilled onto Hernandez, a fact which the latter did not dispute. Also, as stated above, I do not
believe Hatten ever conducted an investigation of the incident. Rather, he relied solely upon the
security guard’s incident report, admittedly neither pressed McDuffy for details nor spoke to the
asserted victim, Hernandez, and disciplined Griffith because deliberately spilling water sounded
like something the alleged discriminatee would do. Moreover, while Hatten originally testified
that the import of the incident concerned Griffith deliberately spilling a cup of water on a guest,
he later contradicted himself, stating that the alleged discriminatee’s behavior, when he
assertedly spoke to her on February 20, “weighed more heavily.” Nevertheless, Hatten failed to
mention the latter point in the written warning notice. Finally, crediting Tito Aquino, while, on
February 20, Hatten may have spent some time searching for Griffith, he later had an
opportunity to speak to her near the EVS office but made no effort to do so. In these
circumstances, Respondent failed to establish that it would have disciplined Griffith on February
23 even absent the existence of unlawful animus, and I, therefore, find that it issued the written
warning notice to Griffith that day in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Concerning the SEIU-H-UHW bargaining unit employees’ membership meeting at the
Summit Hospital campus cafeteria on March 20, I initially find that, as had been their custom for
prior membership meetings, including the similar January 29 meeting, the SEIU-UHW stewards
publicized this meeting by posting and distributing flyers, which announced a membership
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
35
meeting and did not bear the NUHW logo;94 that the stewards, including Griffith, were
supporters of the NUHW’s organizing campaign and of the campaign to decertify the SEIU-
UHW; and that the purposes of the meeting were to “update” the bargaining unit employees on
the status of the SEIU trusteeship and the on-going bargaining, and to solicit support for the
NUHW and the decertification campaign. Next, I find that, notwithstanding, prior to the advent
of the Union’s organizing campaign and the commencement of the SEIU-UHW decertification
effort, having permitted the SEIU-UHW stewards to conduct day-long general membership
meetings95 for bargaining unit employees in its cafeterias without interference and believing the
membership meeting, scheduled for March 20 at the Summit Hospital campus cafeteria, would,
in reality, be nothing less than an organizing event and a showing of support for the NUHW,
Respondent embarked upon a two-pronged effort to thwart it-- sending a letter to the NUHW,
demanding that its officers, employees and agents cease and desist from conducting such a
meeting, and hiring Allied Barton Security Services to provide two security officers to engage in
surveillance of the membership meeting. Next, on March 20, I find that Bruce Hatten informed
the two security officers, who wore clothing different than worn by Respondent’s own security
officers, its employees were attempting to form a new union but were not allowed to hold a
meeting in support,96 solicit funds, or distribute union literature in the cafeteria and instructed
them to “closely” observe and to take notes and photographs of such “violations;” that Griffith,
who was off duty that day, and Deborah Kirtman, a chief steward, met inside the cafeteria at

94 There is no evidence as to the provenance of General Counsel’s Exhibits Nos. 6 and 9,
and, while I do not doubt the authenticity of each, I do not believe either was prepared by Griffith
or any of the other SEIU-UHW stewards, who organized the March 20 or March 23 membership
meetings.
95 While Bruce Hatten conceded that Respondent had no written rules or policies regarding
the holding of meetings in its cafeterias but asserted that Respondent maintained a “practice” of
not permitting any group to “take over” a dining area so as to be “disruptive” of the intended
purpose of the facility, I credit the alleged discriminatee Griffith and employees Williams and
Horne that, prior to the SEIU-UHW trusteeship, they had been unaware of any restrictions,
placed by Respondent, upon the holding of meetings in the latter’s cafeterias. In this regard,
I credit the three employees that the labor organization’s stewards utilized Respondent’s
cafeterias for general membership meetings without interference from Respondent; that, in the
Summit Hospital campus cafeteria, such meetings were held in the far left area of the dining
area near the annex rooms; that the stewards would move tables together and place literature
on them for distribution; that employees would sit at these tables during their lunch and break
periods, eating meals or snacks and speaking to the stewards; that, on occasion, the stewards
would walk to other tables at which employees were sitting in order to distribute literature and
union-related issues; and that demonstrative of Respondent’s forbearance on such occasions
was the stewards’ day-long membership meeting in the above cafeteria on January 29 during
which the stewards moved tables together in the normal location by the annex rooms, met with
employees at these tables and at others, solicited employees to support the decertification
effort, and distributed literature. In this regard, I note that Francis Kidd and Richard Hinshaw,
who testified on behalf of Respondent on the issue of meetings in the cafeteria, were each
internally inconsistent, contradicted each other, and were not credible. Thus, I note that, while
Kidd testified that, if two tables were pushed together, it would be permissible for eight to ten
employees to sit and meet with a union representative and discuss union business, Hinshaw
contradicted him and said such would not be permissible. Later, however, the latter reversed
himself and conceded such would be tolerated.
96 Hatten was clear that a prohibited meeting was one during which Respondent’s
employees discussed the new union. In this regard, I credit Parks that Hatten’s objection to a
union-related meeting was content based.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
36
approximately 6:00 a.m. and placed stacks of documents and a sign-up sheet on top of a table;
that, moments later, some bargaining unit employees approached the table and the two
stewards engaged them in conversation; that, after the employees walked away, Hatten and a
security officer, Ronnie Parks, approached the stewards’ table; that Hatten asked what was
going on and “snatched” some papers from Griffith; that, when she attempted to retrieve the
documents, Hatten rebuffed her efforts and said he would not return the documents; that Griffith
then threatened to call the police and Hatten returned all but one of the documents, began to
read it, and remarked it concerned the on-going bargaining between Respondent and SEIU-
UHW; that Hatten then turned toward Kirtman and reached for the documents in the stacks in
front of her, including the sign-in sheet; that Kirtman placed her hands over the documents in
order to protect them and asked Hatten to calm himself; that Hatten then told the two stewards
that they were not allowed to conduct a meeting for “outside unions,” pass out flyers, or solicit
funds, and they were “trespassing;” and that, after Kirtman replied that she and Griffith
continued to me SEIU-UHW members and had a right to utilize the cafeteria in order to inform
members, Hatten turned and walked away. Also, on March 20, I find that, after their
confrontation with Hatten, Griffith and Kirtman moved to the area of the dining room where they
normally conducted union business, pushed two tables together, placed their document on top
of the tables, and sat; that Parks and the other security officer moved close to the two women,
sitting at a table a few feet from where Griffith and Kirtman sat and remaining there for the
remainder of the day, carefully listening for and observing potential “violations;” that Griffith, who
stayed in the cafeteria for the entire day, met with approximately 114 bargaining unit employees
throughout the remainder of the day, discussing union-related matters and distributing her
documents to them; and that, throughout the day, some employees did not approach Griffith
and others expressed their reluctance to speak to her because of the presence of the two
security officers
With regard to the SEIU-UHW bargaining unit employees’ membership meeting in the
Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria on March 23, I find that, having conducted a membership
meeting at the Summit Hospital campus three days earlier, the SEIU-UHW dissident stewards,
including Griffith, planned to hold an identical meeting on March 23 at the Alta Bates Hospital
campus; that they publicized the latter meeting with flyers announcing a union membership
meeting, that the purposes of said meeting were similar to the reasons underlying the March 20
meeting; and that Bruce Hatten, on behalf of Respondent, again intended to thwart the
stewards, utilizing security guards to maintain surveillance, including taking photographs, of the
stewards’ activities in the facility’s cafeteria and to report any “violations,” including holding
union-related meetings, soliciting funds, or distributing union literature, to him. I next find, on
March 23, that the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria was sparsely filled when Beverly
Griffith, who was again off duty for the day, and DeAnn Horne arrived at approximately 7:00am;
that they immediately walked to a table in the right corner of the dining area, placed stacks of
the same documents, which the stewards had distributed on March 20, on the table, and sat;
that Bruce Hatten, Ronnie Parks, Mahir Said, another security officer, and Joan Davis, an HR
specialist for Respondent were sitting at a table when Griffith and Horne entered the dining
area; that Hatten left the room and Parks and Said arose and moved to a table no more than six
feet behind the two women; that Horne left the dining area and Kenny Hill, a chief steward for
the SEIU-UHW approached and sat with Griffith; that, while Horne was out of the room, Griffith
noticed some bargaining unit dietary workers sitting and eating at another table; that she arose,
walked to the employees’ table, initially spoke to them while standing, and then sat in a chair;
that she spoke to the employees about their various union-related matters including the pending
decertification petition; that, after five or six minutes, Griffith returned to her table; that Parks
overheard Griffith soliciting money for the NUHW and immediately telephoned for Hatten to
return to the cafeteria; and that, having been gone for half an hour, Horne returned to the
cafeteria and sat at Griffith’s table. I further find that Hatten entered the cafeteria and Parks
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
37
reported observing Griffith walk over to another table and overhearing her soliciting funds for the
new union; that Hatten, accompanied by Parks, walked over to Griffith’s table; that Hatten
addressed Griffith, Horne, and Hill, demanding that they “cease and disperse,” leave the
cafeteria “now,” and no longer engage in their union activities, including distributing literature
and soliciting funds; that, upon hearing Hatten’s order, the three stewards arose and Griffith,
who understood that an employee, who failed to adhere to a manager’s direct order, would be
subject to discipline, told Horne it was time to leave as they were being kicked out of the
cafeteria and asked to use her cell phone in order to arrange for a ride; that Hatten repeated his
order for the stewards to leave; that Griffith and Horne began stuffing the stacks of flyers into a
bag and, before she finished, Hatten warned, “and if you don’t leave before security comes, you
will be suspended and you could be terminated;” that Griffith and Horne finished packing the
documents and began walking out of the cafeteria; that, before they left, two hospital security
guards entered and escorted Griffith out the front entrance of the building. Finally, I find that, at
no point during this incident, did Hatten ever inform Griffith that she was suspended.97
Regarding the events in the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria later on March 23,
I find that, having volunteered to help during the membership meeting, employee Roxie
Osborne arrived at the cafeteria at approximately 10;00am and, observing no on-going union
activity, approached a co-worker, who informed her there would not be a meeting and nodded
toward Parks and Said, who were seated at a nearby table. I next find that the co-worker
informed Osborne that Parks and Said earlier had stopped the meeting and “hustled” Griffith out
of the cafeteria; that, thereafter, noticing several other bargaining unit employees sitting and
eating at another table, Osborne, who was carrying union flyers, walked over to the table and
began speaking to the employees about union issues; that Parks left his table and moved closer
to where Osborne was speaking to her co-workers; that Parks identified the flyers as “union
related” and began photographing Osborne’s activities; that the employees, to whom Osborne
was talking, observed Parks and became “restless;” that, eventually, having reached the end of
their break periods, the employees arose and left the dining area; that Osborne then observed
several other employees enter the dining area and sit at a table; that Osborne walked over to
that table and began giving those co-workers “updates” on union issues; and that, having
telephoned Hatten’s office, Parks was instructed to stop Osborne’s activities. I further find that,
at this point, Parks approached Osborne and told her “you can’t hand out flyers, you can’t solicit
funds, and you can’t hold a meeting . . . in relation to these materials;” that Osborne replied the
flyer was an Alta Bates document and she was sharing it with co-workers; that Parks walked
away and, spotting another co-worker, Osborne approached and began speaking to that
employee; that Parks approached within a few feet of them and then returned to his seat; and
that Osborne then left the cafeteria.
The General Counsel contends that during the foregoing incidents, Respondent
engaged in unlawful surveillance of its employees’ union or other protected concerted activities
in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act and discriminately enforced its solicitation/distribution

97 I base this conclusion on several factors. First, of course, I credit Griffith and Horne that,
while he threatened suspension, Hatten never specifically said that Griffith was suspended.
Moreover, the record does not warrant a conclusion that Hatten informed the alleged
discriminatee she was suspended. Thus, notwithstanding standard procedure, Hatten never
asked Griffith for her identification badge; it defies logic that, aware of her suspension, Griffith
would have reported for work the next day and carried with her leaflets, describing the events at
the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria but omitting her suspension; and, most significantly, all
witnesses, including Tito Aquino, describe Griffith as acting with absolute surprise and shock
when Aquino announced she had been suspended. I do not believe she was merely acting.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
38
rule by telling employees they could not solicit support for the NUHW or distribute NUHW
literature in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. With regard to the former allegation,
there is, of course, no dispute that Respondent engaged in surveillance on both occasions,
closely monitoring Griffith’s and Kirtman’s activities in the Summit Hospital campus cafeteria on
March 20 and Griffith’s, Horne’s, and Osborne’s activities in the Alta Bates Hospital campus
cafeteria on March 23. The Board holds that a supervisor’s observation of employees engaged
in open Section 7 activity on company property does not constitute unlawful surveillance.
However, an employer does violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act when it monitors its employees,
who are engaged in Section 7 activity, by observing them in a way that is “out of the ordinary”
and thereby coercive. Partylite Worldwide, Inc., 344 NLRB 1342 at 1342, n. 5 (2005); Loudon
Steel, Inc., 340 NLRB 307, 313 (2003). Indicia of coercive surveillance include the duration of
the observation, the employer’s distance from the employees while observing them, whether the
surveillance is an isolated act, and whether the employer engaged in other coercive behavior
during its observation.” Wilshire Plaza Hotel, 353 NLRB No. 29 at slip. op. 19 (2008); Aladdin
Gaming, LLC, 345 NLRB 585, 585-586 (2005); Sands Hotel & Casino, San Juan, 306 NLRB
172 at 172 (1992), enfd. sub nom. Mem. S.J.P.R. v. NLRB, 993 F.2d 913 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
Further, photographing open, public union activity on an employer’s property is unlawful as such
“pictorial recordkeeping” tends to create fear amongst employees of reprisals. Wilshire Plaza
Hotel, supra; National Steel & Shipbuilding Co., 324 NLRB 499 (1997), enfd. 156 F.3rd 1268
(D.C. Cir. 1998). Photographing union activities can only be justified by a legitimate security
objective or a reasonable belief that misconduct may occur. Town & Country Supermarkets,
340 NLRB 1410, 1414-1415 (2004); Alle-Kiski Medical Center, 339 NLRB 361, 365 (2003).
Herein, I have found that, on March 20 at the Summit Hospital campus cafeteria,
pursuant to Bruce Hatten’s instructions and after the latter’s confrontation with Griffith and
Kirtman, Ronnie Parks and his fellow security guard, who were Respondent’s agents, followed
the two employees when they moved to the area of the dining room where stewards normally
sat and conducted union business, stationed themselves at a table only a few feet from the
table at which the two stewards sat, and remained at that table for the remainder of the day,
carefully observing and listening to what occurred at the employees’ table and that, as a result
of the guards’ actions, employees expressed reluctance to speak to Griffith and Kirtman. I have
also found that, on March 23 at the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria, when Griffith and
Horne entered the dining room and sat a table, security guards, Parks and Said, who were
Respondent’s agents, moved to a table no more than six feet from where Griffith and Horne
were seated and closely monitored Griffith’s conduct when she moved to a nearby table in order
to speak to bargaining unit employees and that, subsequently, when Roxie Osborne arrived at
the cafeteria, carrying union flyers, sat a table and began speaking to co-workers about union
matters, Parks moved close to where Osborne was seated and began photographing her
activities. Moreover, I find that, on March 20 and March 23, Griffith, Kirtman, Horne, and
Osborne engaged in classic Section 7 protected activity-- conducting union business including
soliciting support for the NUHW and distributing union literature. In the foregoing
circumstances, there can be no doubt that the security guards’ observations of Respondent’s
employees’ Section 7 activities in the Summit Hospital campus cafeteria on March 20 and in the
Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria on March 23 were not mere happenstance. Rather, as
Parks and his fellow security guards’ actions were guided by Bruce Hatten’s instructions, their
acts of surveillance were calculated, and Respondent failed to deny that the guards were hired
specifically to closely monitor its employees’ union activities and does not contend that said acts
of surveillance were conducted in the ordinary course of business. Further, the guards’
surveillance, including the photographing of Osborne, was blatantly conducted only a few feet
from where Griffith, Kirtman, Horne, and Osborne attempted to engage in their Section 7
activities and continued unabated for the entirety of each day. Moreover, as I shall discuss
below, Respondent’s above-described surveillance on both days was conducted concomitant
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
39
with its unlawful, discriminatory redefinition of its solicitation/distribution rules against its
employees. Finally, while Respondent’s attorney assets that the posting of the additional
security guards in its cafeterias on March 20 and March 23 was a reasonable response to the
NUHW’s announcement of membership meetings on those days, given Ronnie Parks’
admissions regarding Bruce Hatten’s explanation for their surveillance duties, as stated above,
I believe Respondent’s real purpose on each date was to trammel and stymie its SEIU-UHW
bargaining unit employees’ increasing support for a new bargaining representative-- the NUHW.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s surveillance of its employees’ Section 7 activities on March
20 and March 23 was violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Wilshire Plaza Hotel, supra;
Partylite Worldwide, supra.
Turning to Respondent’s alleged discriminatory enforcement of its solicitation/distribution
rules on March 20 and March 23, while Respondent maintains written policies, regarding
solicitations and distributions, which prohibit employees from soliciting or distributing literature
during scheduled working time and from engaging in said actions in all patient care areas and in
all other areas in which employees normally work, said work areas do not include any of
Respondent’s cafeterias. Further, the record evidence is that, historically prior to March 20,
Respondent’s employees had utilized the cafeterias for solicitations, including collecting union
dues, and for distributing union-related literature without restriction by Respondent.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, I believe that when, on March 20 in the Summit Hospital campus
cafeteria, acting on behalf of Respondent, Bruce Hatten approached Griffith and Kirtman and
warned the two employees they could not conduct a meeting for an “outside union,” distribute
literature, or solicit funds and when, on March 23 at the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria,
Hatten demanded that Griffith and Horne cease and desist from their union activities, including
distributing literature and soliciting funds, and Ronnie Parks admonished Roxie Osborne that
she was not allowed to solicit funds or distribute literature on behalf of a union, Respondent, in
fact, redefined its solicitation/distribution rules to make said restrictions applicable to its
cafeterias, which are non-patient-care areas. Moreover, given Bruce Hatten’s comments to
Ronnie Parks, I reiterate my conclusion that, as with its unlawful surveillance of its employees
on the above occasions, as a result of its SEIU-UHW bargaining unit employees’ overt showing
of support for the NUHW subsequent to the trusteeship, Respondent redefined its
solicitation/distribution policies on March 20 and March 23 specifically in order to hinder said
employees’ actions in support of the NUHW. In this regard, I note that Respondent placed no
similar restrictions upon SEIU-UHW agents, who utilized its cafeterias to meet with bargaining
unit employees in order to discuss union business and distribute literature.
The Board’s rules and presumptions, concerning limitations and/or restrictions on
employees, who are engaged in solicitations or distributions of literature, by hospitals, are
different than those which the Board generally applies to other types of employers. Thus, In
St. Johns Hospital & School of Nursing, 322 NLRB 1150,1151 (1976), the Board recognized
that, in order to provide a “tranquil atmosphere” which is essential for patient care, a hospital
may lawfully ban employee solicitations and distributions during nonworking time in immediate
patient care areas. However, the Board also recognized that, as “. . . the possibility of any
disruption in patient care resulting from solicitation or distribution is remote,” broader
restrictions, extending such to visitor access areas other than those involved in patient care, are
not justified by the above considerations. Further, as to patient access areas, including hospital
cafeterias, the Board was emphatic about bans on soliciting and/or distributions-- “. . . we do not
perceive how patients would be affected adversely by such activities. On balance, the interests
of patients well enough to frequent such areas do not outweigh those of employees to discuss
or solicit union representation.” The Board’s ruling, that prohibiting solicitations and distributions
in areas other than immediate patient care areas, absent a showing that disruptions to patient
care would necessarily result from said activities, would be unjustified and unlawful, was upheld
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
40
by the Supreme Court in Beth Israel Hospital v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483 (1978). Therein, the Court
upheld the Board’s “general approach” of “. . . requiring health-care facilities to permit employee
solicitation and distribution during nonworking time in nonworking areas, where the facility has
not justified the prohibition as necessary to avoid disruption of health-care operations or
disturbance of patients . . . .” Subsequently, in NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, 442 U.S. 773 (1979),
the Court determined that the Board’s aforementioned approach was, in reality, a presumption
which placed the burden upon the health-care institution to prove, with respect to areas which a
prohibition against solicitations’ and distributions applies, that these activities may adversely
affect patients. Id. at 781. Accordingly, the law is of longstanding validity that, with regard to
health care institutions, restrictions on solicitation during nonworking time or distribution of
literature during nonworking time and in nonworking areas are presumptively unlawful with
respect to areas, such as a cafeteria, that may be accessible to patients. Hospital Pavia Perea,
352 NLRB 418, 422 (2008); Brockton Hospital, 333 NLRB 1367, 1368 (2001); Eastern Maine
Medical Center, 251 NLRB 224, 225-226 (1980). However, said presumption appears to be a
rebuttable one, placing the burden upon the health care employer, which institutes such a
restriction in its cafeteria or a like area, to prove that the prohibited employee solicitations and
distributions may adversely affect patients. Eastern Maine Medical Center, supra, at 226, n. 9.
Clearly, while Respondent’s published solicitation/distribution policies comport with the
foregoing precedent, its March 20 and March 23 redefinitions of said rules do not. Moreover,
I reiterate my view that said redefinitions were designed to impede the SEIU-UHW bargaining
unit employees from engaging in support of the NUHW.
In defense and in order to rebut the above presumption, counsel for Respondent argues
that the redefined restrictions, which Hatten announced on March 20 at the Summit Hospital
campus cafeteria and which Hatten and Parks announced on March 23 at the Alta Bates
Hospital campus cafeteria, were justified to ensure an appropriate environment for health care
and to ensure that its cafeterias were used for their intended purposes. However, with regard to
the former, the Board has consistently recognized in considering restrictions on employee
solicitations and distributions for unions in health care facilities that, in areas, other than
immediate patient care areas, such as cafeterias or gift shops, where the possibility for a
disruption in patient care is remote, the interests of patients, who may be healthy enough to
frequent such areas, do not outweigh the interests of employees to discuss union representation
or engage in solicitations on behalf of a labor organization. Regarding patient care interests in
the instant matter, the record establishes that most of the patrons of Respondent’s cafeterias
are its own employees and that, due to dietary concerns, patients are discouraged or restricted
from using the cafeterias. Further, there is no record evidence of any patient care inside or near
any of Respondent’s cafeterias. As to whether Griffith,98 Kirtman, or Horne engaged in acts and
conduct inimical to the normal operations of Respondent’s cafeterias on either March 20 or
March 21, Hatten conceded that Griffith and Kirtman engaged in no such actions on March 20
and, notwithstanding that Parks only mentioned she had moved to another table and was
soliciting money from employees there and that the cafeteria was sparsely populated that
morning, Hatten’s dubious descriptions of Griffith’s asserted misconduct on March 23 were

98 Respondent’s counsel argues that “. . . Griffith’s status as an employee who was not
scheduled to work on either day of the meetings further diminishes her claim to protection under
the Act.” I disagree. While it is true that Griffith was off duty on both March 20 and March 23,
Respondent maintains no rule, denying access to its facilities to off duty employees, and there is
no record evidence that Respondent has ever limited the access of off duty employees to its
cafeterias or other non-patient care areas. In this regard, Respondent’s own rules require that,
while soliciting or distributing literature inside its cafeterias, employees must not be wearing their
work uniforms.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
41
tortuous and recrementitious, variously accusing her of “taking over part of the cafeteria,”
conducting a meeting, “calling attention to herself,” being disruptive, and, generally “disturbing
the environment” for the patrons of the cafeteria. In his post-hearing brief, counsel for
Respondent contends that “. . . employees may socialize in small groups and participate in
meals as is normally expected in a cafeteria and engage in solicitation and distribution incidental
to that normal use.” However, a dining room may not be commandeered as a public meeting
place by any group.” Counsel is undoubtedly correct that an outside group or even a group of
its own employees may not sequestrate a hospital’s entire cafeteria or even a section thereof for
a large scale rally or assembly or engage in other actions inimical to the normal operations of
the said cafeteria. Per contra, no such miscreant activity occurred on either March 20 or
March 23. Moreover, I have found that, historically, Respondent has permitted its employees to
hold union meetings in its cafeterias without restrictions, and, given Bruce Hatten’s instructions
to Ronnie Parks on March 20 and 23, rather than fear of any disruption to patient care or even
to the operation of its cafeterias, what appears to have motivated Respondent on said dates to
redefine its solicitation/distribution rules was its opposition to and desire to squelch the SEIU-
UHW bargaining unit employees’ increasing support for the NUHW. That such was, in fact,
Respondent’s motivation may be inferred from the fact that, on both dates, Hatten failed to
merely caution Griffith and Kirtman, and Horne that they must not engage in their Section 7
protected activities in a disruptive manner, that they must speak softly so as not to disturb other
patrons who were eating and conversing, or that they should not move from table to table while
engaging in their union activities. Instead, Hatten explicitly warned that they could not solicit or
distribute literature for an outside union, or hold a meeting. Contrary to Hatten’s protestations at
the hearing, as Hatten informed Parks that a forbidden meeting would be “. . . a group of people
discussing the union business . . . ,” the latter prohibition was clearly content driven and had
nothing to do with the size of such or any disruptive effect. Finally, I note that Respondent
made no effort to stop SEIU agents Hernandez and McDuffy from meeting with employees or
distributing literature to them inside its cafeterias. Based upon the foregoing, I find that
Respondent discriminated against its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act
by precipitously redefining its solicitation/distribution rules in response to and in order to stifle
the SEIU-UHW bargaining unit employees’ support for the NUHW. Youville Heath Care Center,
326 NLRB 495 at 495 (1998).
Next, the General Counsel alleges that, on March 23, Respondent threatened to
suspend Griffith, ordered her to leave the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria, and suspended
her in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. In this regard, I have found that, upon
confronting her that morning in the said cafeteria, Bruce Hatten threatened to suspend her
unless she left the cafeteria before Respondent’s security officers arrived and that he evicted
Griffith from the cafeteria. Further, I find that, at some point later in the day, subsequent to the
cafeteria confrontation, Respondent suspended Griffith as a prelude to eventually discharging
her and informed her supervisor, Tito Aquino, of said personnel action. Utilizing the Wright Line,
supra, analytical approach, I have found that Griffith was involved in the decertification effort
against SEIU-UHW and was an ardent supporter of the NUHW’s organizing campaign amongst
the bargaining unit employees and that she participated in the March 20 and March 23 meetings
during which she solicited support and funds for the Union-- actions privileged by Section 7 of
the Act. Likewise, I have found that Respondent suspected Griffith’s support for the NUHW,
and, of course, there can be no question that Respondent was keenly aware of the alleged
discriminatee’s participation in the March 20 and March 23 union meetings, including her
solicitations in support of the NUHW. I have previously concluded that Respondent was
unlawfully motivated in disciplining Griffith with a written warning notice on February 23. Also,
I have determined that Respondent unlawfully engaged in surveillance of Griffith’s activities and
discriminatorily redefined its solicitation/distribution rules in order to impede her actions in
support of the NUHW during the above two union meetings. Accordingly, I believe that the
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
42
General Counsel has amply established that Respondent threatened to suspend Griffith, evicted
her from the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria, and later suspended her on March 23
because of her support for the NUHW.
Therefore, the burden shifted to Respondent to establish that it would have taken the
foregoing disciplinary actions against Griffith notwithstanding the existence of unlawful animus,
and, in its defense, Respondent contends that the alleged discriminatee engaged in patent acts
of misconduct on March 23 and that its employment actions were warranted. Counsel for
Respondent initially asserts that “any legal protection that may have attached to Griffith . . . did
not extend to moving from table to table and otherwise exceeding the normal and customary
ways in which patrons use a cafeteria” and that Parks reported Griffith’s foregoing conduct to
Hatten. In this regard, while Griffith admitted, that, after Horne left the cafeteria, she left her
table, moved to another table, at which bargaining unit employees were sitting and eating, and
commenced speaking to them about union matters and soliciting funds for the NUHW, I have
concluded and reiterate that Bruce Hatten’s second-hand testimony, regarding Griffith’s
asserted disruptive acts and conduct on March 23, was convoluted and exaggerated. In short,
rather than the truth, such was indicative of his intent merely to bolster Respondent’s defense.
Further, counsel is certainly correct that, in several decisions (for example Montgomery Ward &
Co., 256 NLRB 800, 801 (1981), Harolds Club, 267 NLRB 1167 at 1167 (1983), and Southern
Maryland Hospital, 293 NLRB 1209, 1216 (1989)), the Board has held that employees or union
organizers, who move from table to table in an employer’s restaurant or cafeteria, termed “table-
hopping,” engage in conduct inconsistent with the purpose of such a facility and are not entitled
to the protection of the Act; however, such is not a truism. Thus, in its underlying Beth Israel
Hospital decision,99 notwithstanding that an employee had engaged in table hopping while
distributing union-related literature, the Board concluded that, by disciplining him for violating a
no-solicitation rule inside its cafeteria, the respondent had acted in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act. Herein, Griffith moved from her table to just one other table and then directly
returned to her table, and there is no evidence that her actions disrupted other patrons’ use of
the cafeteria in any way, or that any patrons complained. Counsel for Respondent next
contends that, after being warned of the consequences for failing to comply, Griffith refused
Hatten’s direct order to leave the premises. While the alleged discriminatee and Horne may not
have departed as promptly as Hatten desired, in accord with my credibility resolutions, I do not
believe that, at any point during her confrontation with Hatten, did Griffith ever argue with the
latter or act defiantly in response to his order, engage in a telephone conversation with her
lawyer, or, in any other manner, refuse to comply with Hatten’s demand or engage in any action
suggestive of such. Moreover, Hatten’s testimony, concerning Griffith’s refusal to leave the
cafeteria, was uncorroborated by any other witness. In the foregoing circumstances, given the
overwhelming evidence of unlawful animus, I do not believe that Respondent has established
that, on March 23, it would have demanded that Griffith leave the Alta Bates Hospital campus
cafeteria, threatened to suspend her, and, subsequently, suspended her notwithstanding her
activities in support of the Union. Accordingly, I find that Respondent’s above-stated actions
were violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Turning to the events of March 24, there is no dispute, and I find, that, sometime during
the previous afternoon, Brett Rogers telephoned Tito Aquino and told the latter Griffith had been
suspended and would not be allowed to be on the premises. Next, I find that, prior to the start
of her work shift, Griffith, wearing her work clothes and carrying flyers which set forth her
version of the events in the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria the previous day, including
Hatten’s threat to suspend her, arrived at the Summit Hospital campus and immediately went to

99 223 NLRB 1193 (1976).
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
43
the EVS break room in order to drink coffee and report to her co-workers what had transpired
the day before; that, as she was talking to her co-workers, Tito Aquino entered the room and
asked to speak to Griffith out in the hallway; that, after initially demurring, she agreed to speak
to Aquino but asked Lawana Williams to accompany her; that, in the hallway, Aquino informed
Griffith she had been suspended and would have to leave the hospital building immediately; that
Griffith, who was “shocked” and surprised by the news, asked why and whether her suspension
was in writing; that Aquino said no and repeated that Griffith had to leave the facility; that
Griffith, followed by Aquino, who stood at the door, returned to the break room and, while
gathering her personal items, angrily exclaimed that she had just been suspended and it was a
bunch of “bullshit;” that Aquino entered the room and told Griffith she had to leave immediately;
that the latter finished gathering her belongings and, with Williams accompanying her, left the
break room and walked toward the service elevators; that a security guard met her at the
elevators and escorted her to the front entrance; and that outside Griffith used her cell phone to
arrange for a ride home.
There is, of course, no dispute that 13 days later, Respondent fired Griffith on April 6,
and the General Counsel alleges that said discharge was violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act. Utilizing the Wright Line analytical framework, the record evidence is that Griffith
engaged in protected activities and that Respondent was well aware of most of her actions and
suspected others. Thus, Griffith actively participated in the decertification effort against SEIU-
UHW, became an ardent supporter of the NUHW’s organizing campaign, and solicited for and
distributed literature on behalf of the NUHW on March 20 in the Summit Hospital campus
cafeteria and March 23 in the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria. Through its unlawful
surveillance of her actions on March 20 and March 23, Respondent became aware of her
protected activity; on February 20, Respondent distributed an e-mail, linking Griffith to the
distribution of NUHW literature on its property; and, on March 27, approximately when
Respondent reached its decision to discharge her, Richard Hinshaw distributed another e-mail,
announcing that Hatten was pursuing information linking Griffith to the copying of “staff
signatures,” which, Respondent suspected, “. . . may have been used by NUHW to demonstrate
a 30% showing of interest for the decertification petition. We think part of Beverly’s activities
doing NUHW business has been collecting signatures for the petition. . . .” Moreover, there also
exists overwhelming record evidence establishing Respondent’s unlawful animus against
Griffith. In this regard, I have previously concluded that Respondent was unlawfully motivated in
disciplining Griffith over the February 17 water spilling incident, that Respondent redefined its
solicitation/distribution policies in order to stifle its SEIU-UHW bargaining unit employees’
support for the NUHW, and that, on March 23, Respondent unlawfully evicted Griffith from the
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
44
Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria, threatened to suspend her, and eventually suspended her
in retaliation for her activities in support of the NUHW.100
Clearly, the burden shifted to Respondent to establish that it would have discharged
Griffith notwithstanding the overwhelming record evidence of its unlawful animus against the
alleged discrimintee. In this regard, counsel for Respondent contends that Griffith’s return to
work on March 24 was not activity protected by Section 7 of the Act, that Griffith lost any
remaining protection of the Act due to her use of profanity, and that Respondent was lawfully
motivated by Griffith’s recent disciplinary history. At the outset, while Bruce Hatten testified that
Respondent’s primary reason for discharging Griffith was that, on March 23, she violated his
direct order to cease and desist her meeting and to leave the Alta Bates Hospital campus
cafeteria, I reiterate that, while she may not have moved as quickly as Hatten desired, Griffith
complied with his explicit instructions to leave and that she never refused to leave the cafeteria
or acted in any manner suggestive of her refusal to comply with his order. As to her disorderly
behavior that morning, while Hatten asserted that Griffith arose and took over part of the
cafeteria to have a meeting, which actions were “disruptive” and “calling attention to herself,”
I have previously documented Hatten’s utterly self-serving and disingenuous testimony
regarding Griffith’s actions, and I believe that moving from her own table to another and then
back to her table hardly constitutes the inappropriate behavior termed table-hopping. Also,
I note that, without restriction, Respondent has permitted its employees to engage in table
hopping while soliciting or selling food items for charities, schools, or religious purposes. Next,
Respondent’s counsel’s contention-- the Act does not privilege Griffith’s return to work after her
suspension-- is, of course, based upon a canard. In this regard, I have previously credited the
alleged discriminatee that, during their confrontation on May 23, while he threatened to do so,
Hatten never actually suspended Griffith, and, as previously discussed, the record clearly
warrants said conclusion. Thus, contrary to normal procedure, Hatten failed to demand that
Griffith relinquish her security badge; Griffith reported for work the next morning wearing her
work uniform and carrying flyers, detailing the events of the previous morning including Hatten’s
threat to suspend her; and, by all accounts, Griffith became shocked and outraged upon being
informed of her suspension by Tito Aquino. Therefore, contrary to counsel, I believe that
Respondent suspended Griffith on March 23 at some time subsequent to the above incident and
that, when she reported for work on March 24, Griffith was absolutely unaware that Respondent
had acted upon Hatten’s threat and suspended her. On this point, given Griffith’s ignorance of
Respondent’s act, counsel’s reliance upon the Board’s decision in Special Touch Home Care
Services, 351 NLRB 754, 757 (2007) is misplaced. Finally, turning to Respondent’s contention
that its termination of Griffith was justified due to her use of profanity in the EVS break room on
March 24, said assertion is based upon the respective accounts of Aquino and Carla Biddle,

100 The termination notice, which Respondent gave to Griffith, refers to the March 23
meeting at the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria as “an advertised meeting for an outside
organization,” held in contravention of Respondent’s policy. I do not think that said meeting was
held on behalf of or for the NUHW. Thus, while the NUHW logo does appear on the
announcement, which is in the record, Griffith credibly testified that the flyer, which was
published prior to the March 20 meeting, did not have such a logo and that she did not see
General Counsel’s Exhibit No. 9 until she gave her pre-trial affidavit. Moreover, the
announcements for the March 20 and March 23 meetings refer to membership meetings, and
the documents, which Griffith and the others were prepared to distribute, included material
pertinent to the bargaining between Respondent and SEIU-UHW. Finally, while the termination
notice mentions Respondent’s policy against meetings held in the cafeteria for outside
organizations, such was not a written practice and no bargaining unit employees were aware of
the existence of such a policy or practice.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
45
neither of whom impressed me as testifying candidly on this point. In particular, as noted
above, although ostensibly observing the same event, their respective versions of Griffith’s
attributed words are not corroborative and utterly contradictory on salient points such as where
each supposedly stood while listening and, in particular, Griffith’s asserted profanity-laced attack
upon Aquino. In addition, the latter related three inconsistent versions of Griffith’s comments
inside the break room. In short, I do not believe their accounts101 and, therefore, can not
conclude that Griffith uttered the word “fucking” or any variant thereof while venting inside the
break room immediately after being informed of her suspension. In the foregoing
circumstances, I find that Respondent has failed to sustain its burden of proof and that, as the
patent record evidence of unlawful animus makes perfectly clear, the latter discharged Beverly
Griffith because of her support for the NUHW in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The NUHW is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By engaging in surveillance of its employees, who were engaged in union or other
protected concerted activities at its Summit Hospital campus cafeteria on March 20 and at its
Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria on March 23, Respondent engaged in acts and conduct
violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. By redefining its solicitation/distribution policies in order to inhibit and stifle its
employees from engaging in activities in support of the NUHW at its Summit Hospital campus
cafeteria on March 20 and at its Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria on March 23, Respondent
engaged in acts and conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
5. On February 23, by giving a disciplinary warning notice to its employee, Beverly
Griffith, because she participated in activities in support of the NUHW, Respondent engaged in
acts and conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
6. On March 23, by evicting its employee, Beverly Griffith, from its Alta Bates Hospital
campus cafeteria and threatening to suspend her because she engaged in union or other
protected concerted activities, including activities in support of the NUHW, and, subsequently,
suspending her because she participated in said activities, Respondent engaged in acts and
conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
7. On April 6, by discharging its employee, Beverly Griffith, because she participated in
activities in support of the NUHW, Respondent engaged in acts and conduct in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.

101 The record contains ostensible, contemporaneous statements from Aquino and Biddle,
which corroborate the testimony of each. I give no credence to either. Thus, Aquino’s
purported statement was his second draft, and Respondent failed to offer the original to
corroborate revisions made by Aquino. Biddle’s written version of Griffith’s comments, which
she drafted at the behest of Hatten, and her testimonial version were utterly contradictory.
Finally, given their dubious nature, I suspect that each is a fabrication, drafted subsequent to
Griffith’s discharge as justification for Respondent’s action. In short, I do not credit the guileful
Hatten that he relied upon these documents in deciding to discharge Griffith.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
46
8. Respondent’s above-described acts and conduct affect commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6), and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
I have found that Respondent engaged in serious unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Accordingly, I shall
recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from engaging such acts and
conduct. Generally, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from
interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act, including their actions in support of the NUHW. Specifically, I have
found that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against its employee, Beverly Griffith, including
issuing a written warning notice to her, evicting her from the Alta Bates Hospital campus
cafeteria, threatening to suspend her, suspending her, and subsequently discharging her. With
regard to Respondent’s unlawful discharge of Griffith, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
offer her immediate reinstatement to her former position of employment or, if said position no
longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, with no loss of seniority or any other rights
and privileges previously enjoyed and to make her whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits, computed on a quarterly basis from April 6, 2009 to the date of a proper offer of
reinstatement to her, less any interim earnings, as prescribed in F.W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB
289 (1960) with interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).. Further, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to expunge from its records
any references to its unlawful discriminatory actions against Griffith, including its February 23
warning notice to her, its eviction of her from the Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria, its
suspension of Griffith, and her termination, and to inform her that such has been done. Finally, I
shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to post notices to its employees at each of its
campuses, advising them of its unfair labor practices and the steps it is required to take to
remedy them.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended.102
ORDER
The Respondent, Alta Bates Summit Medical Center, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Engaging in surveillance of its employees, who are engaged in union or other
protected concerted activities in its cafeterias;
(b) Redefining its solicitation/distribution policies in order to inhibit and stifle its
employees from engaging in activities in support of the NUHW in its cafeterias;

102 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
47
(c) Giving disciplinary warning notices to employees because they participate in
activities in support of the NUHW;
(d) Evicting its employees from its cafeterias and threatening to suspend its
employees because they engage in union or other protected concerted activities, including
activities in support of the NUHW, and, subsequently, suspending them because they
participated in said activities;
(e) Discharging its employees because they have engaged in activities in support of
the NUHW;
(f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Beverly Griffith full
reinstatement to her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed
and make Griffith whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
discrimination against her in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any references to
the unlawful discharge, suspension, eviction from its Alta Bates Hospital campus cafeteria, and
warning notice given to Griffith and within 3 days thereafter notify Griffith in writing that this has
been done and that the above-described discipline will not be used against her in any way.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the
Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated
by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such
records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its several hospital campuses
in Oakland and Berkeley, California., copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”103
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 32, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of business or
closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by
the Respondent at any time since February 23, 2009.

103 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD(SF)–25–10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
48
(e) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a sworn
certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 16, 2010
____________________
Burton Litvack
Administrative Law Judge
JD(SF)−25−10
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT discharge you, suspend you, threaten you with suspension, issue a disciplinary
warning notice to you, or evict you from our cafeterias if you engage in activities in support of
National Union of Healthcare Workers, herein called the NUHW.
WE WILL NOT reinterpret our solicitation/distribution policies in order to inhibit and stifle our
employees from engaging in activities in support of the NUHW in our cafeterias.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of our employees, who are engaged in union or other
,protected concerted activities in our cafeterias.
WE WILL NOT, in any like or related manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of your rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer Beverly Griffith full reinstatement to
her former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed and make Griffith
whole, with interest, for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of our
discrimination against her.
JD(SF)−25−10
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from its files any references to the
unlawful discharge, suspension, eviction from our Alta Bates Hospital campus, and warning
notice given to Griffith, and within 3 days thereafter notify her in writing that this has been done
and that the above-described unlawful actions will not be used against her in any way.
Alta Bates Summit Medical Center
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1301 Clay Street, Federal Building, Room 300N
Oakland, California 94612-5211
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
510-637-3300.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 510-637-3270.
JD(SF)−25−10
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
ALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL CENTER
and Cases 32-CA-24459
32-CA-24469
NATIONAL UNION OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS 32-CA-24470
Amy L. Berbower, Esq. and
Yaromil Valez-Ralph, Esq., of Oakland, CA.,
appearing on behalf of the General Counsel.
David J. Tubman, Jr., Esq.
(Tubman Law Group), of Oakland, CA.,
For the Charging Party.
Christopher T. Scanlan, Esq. and
Ellinor R. Coder, Esq. (Jones Day),
of San Francisco, CA, for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
Statement of the Case ...................................................................................................... 1
Findings of Fact ................................................................................................................ 2
I. Jurisdiction.................................................................................................................. 2
II. Labor Organization .................................................................................................... 2
A. The Issues............................................................................................................... 2
B. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices ......................................................................... 3
1. The Facts............................................................................................................. 3
2. The February 17 Water-Spilling Incident and Respondent’s Subsequent
Written Warning to Griffith..................................................................................... 9
3. The March 20 Incident at Respondent’s Summit Hospital Campus Cafeteria....... 13
4. The March 23 Incidents at Respondent’s Alta Bates Hospital Campus Cafeteria. 17
5. Beverly Griffith’s Suspension and Ejection from the Summit Hospital
Campus on March 24 by Respondent .................................................................. 23
6. Respondent’s April 6 Discharge of Beverly Griffith ............................................... 28
C. Legal Analysis ......................................................................................................... 30
Conclusions of Law........................................................................................................... 45
Remedy ............................................................................................................................ 46
ORDER ............................................................................................................................ 46
APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 49